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.