The Grand Illusion
A line in a reader response caught my attention.
“Not everyone can afford those better clothes and the idea that they were lesser because of it was nonsense back then just like it is now.”
The fact is that while clothes do not make the person, they do reflect, to a certain extent, where a person stands in society. All societies throughout history have employed certain aspects of human representation to reflect where people stand in that society, whether those aspects are tattoos, hairdos, the size of ear lobes, styles and amount of expensive clothing, or something else.
Clothes have certainly played that role in western European culture, as have they in technologically advanced far eastern cultures and others as well.
Admittedly, all these forms of persona self-statement and/or representation effectively rest on comparative economic or social/religious position, but they’re far from nonsense, because the people with power in complex, materialistic societies do want to distinguish themselves from people who they believe are lesser. While one could even make the argument that “clothes competition” is a far less wasteful use of wealth and power to gain or demonstrate position, the problem is that the mega-wealthy simply escalate the level of “display” into the mega-mansions and mega-yachts now in vogue.
There’s also a reason why soldiers wear uniforms, or why students in some elite private schools do as well, and it has to do with removing clothing as a weapon of overt social positioning.
I’d agree that that greater or more extensive display hardly measures human worth, but it does measure economic success… of someone, even if the wealth is inherited.
But to say that better clothes as a display of wealth, power, and position is nonsense shows a lack of understanding of culture and human nature.
“…they’re far from nonsense, because the people with power in complex, materialistic societies do want to distinguish themselves from people who they believe are lesser.”
“Who they believe are lesser”? Nonsense. Money is power, but it hardly indicates superiority at anything but accumulating money. Just shows how short-sighted the wealthy **can** be.
Someone like Mother Teresa is superior ****in my view**** to every billionaire/plutocrat there’s ever been.
“But to say that better clothes as a display of wealth, power, and position is nonsense shows a lack of understanding of culture and human nature.”
No, it shows a value judgment based on different values. (It’s my generation rather than yours, but remember “Get a haircut!”? Yeah, hair length in the 60s could indicate rebelliousness, but equally could show “I want to look different from 50s people.”)
Love ya, LEM, but I don’t think you’re managing to express your viewpoint as well as usual here. It ***seems*** like you’re not seeing where some of us are coming from. Or, I suppose, rejecting it.
I think you’re overreading and missing my points. When people believe in something and order their lives according to it, it may be foolish, short-sighted, and even self-destructive, but it’s unfortunately not nonsense, because, whether we like it or not, it can have a profound effect. Also, accumulating money (not inheriting it) does take a certain amount of skill. If it didn’t, everyone would be wealthy. I’ve encountered enough wealthy individuals over my lifetime that I wouldn’t wish to be like any of them.
And all you have to do is to look at Donald Trump to see that some wealthy individuals do believe that those who aren’t wealthy are “lesser.” I’m not condoning that attitude, but pointing out that it exists.
Now that I agree with. I don’t think I’m overreading, though, not with my background. (If I am, I’m embarrassed.) But let me go back to the original quoted words (which, by the way, aren’t mine, I just agree with them, and wanted to comment):
“Not everyone can afford those better clothes and the idea that they were lesser because of it was nonsense back then just like it is now.”
The idea that anyone is lesser because of, well, just about any single factor is an opinion, and can legitimately be considered nonsense. (In my mind, we all are born, we all feel pain, we all die. We’re equal in the ways that count. To me.)
So the idea that someone is lesser because of money, skin color, creed, and so on is, to me, nonsense. They are less able to accumulate wealth, less able to keep police knees off their necks, etc., but not an overall lesser person.
Likewise for being a narcissistic idiot. Narcissistic idiots set the human race back, they damage everyone and everything they touch. They are less empathic, less able to get along, have narrower perspectives.
But they aren’t lesser beings. That’s what I’m reacting to here.
One more:
“…the way people dress reflects a certain amount of respect – or lack of it – for others.” I don’t agree, not entirely. I’d put it this way:
“…the way people dress reflects a certain amount of respect – or lack of it – for others’ preferences in dress and occasion.”
I’m sorry, I just can’t see that, for example, wearing a tie shows respect for others. I do think it shows respect for their desire to have people wear something formal. Which I am willing to do – or I don’t show up.
Hope this is clear. I am certainly trying to be.
Perhaps it’s a matter of terminology, but “nonsense” means effectively “no sense.” I’ve never said that someone is lesser because of any single factor, as you put it. I have said that, throughout history, many people have judged others on that basis. That’s a fact, not nonsense. While it may not make sense to you, or me, it’s a fact. We may consider that it makes no sense, but in the real world, it happens, and it has impacts.
It probably is a matter of terminology. Wiktionary gives the first meaning of nonsense that aligns with what you’ve said, but the second meaning is “an untrue statement.”
“nonsense” means effectively “no sense.”
That fits with the first definition of nonsenses in Wiktionary; the second is “a statement that is untrue,” which is where I was coming from.
If you’re going to start in with me on what is or isn’t a fact, I’m out.
LEM – I apologize for the tone.
I can disagree with you without getting this testy.
I’ve been angry since November ’24, and it’s getting to me. I have to resist that better.
Ironically, like that classic XKCD comic about engineers who try to create universal standards (https://xkcd.com/927/), I think folks who try to refute this fact of humanity often unwittingly embrace it, because their subsequent fashion choices are influenced by their feelings on the matter.
Speaking as a younger person, though, I appreciate the efforts of those folks because they’ve increased the variety of ‘acceptable’ outfits at the office, at the airport, at the gym, and so on. I think many of the people I interact with on a daily basis realize that what we wear is not a summation of our emotional intelligence, our mathematical ability, our loyalty… all those qualities which make a good human. I like that.
Social profiling isn’t nonsense, but it gleans both truths and lies, and most see only truths. Clothes are clothes; so long as they’re clean and intentional, I don’t mind. There are better metrics for creating community and evaluating respect.
(Amusingly, most of the men with good suit collections that I know are queer, since that’s the way fashion trends are going in our community currently; most of the rich and white collar blokes try to present as economical and frugal. Thirteen black t-shirts and all that.)
I’m honored I spoke well enough to deserve follow up.
In that case I was using nonsense in the sense of it being ridiculous to judged based on these things.
That was not a disagreement that there have been people and societies that did it, but that doing so was ridiculous and shouldn’t happen.
Thus disagreeing with the idea of being better dressed or dressed nicely being a thing to be missed or lauded.
Dream of the world the way you want it to be, not the way it’s been.