When did the Slide Toward Casual Begin in Earnest?

[Widebrim]

Don't overlook the influence that central heating and air conditioning have had on clothing choices.

Very good point! (And let's include the lowering of car rooftops in the mid '50s and how it contributed to men not wearing their hats anymore while driving.) I believe that controlling the environment has had a huge influence on clothing choices: A person became able to, feasibly, exit a warm (or cool) house, enter a soon-to-be warm (or cool) auto, and then enter a warm (or cool) building. Things being so, one could theoritically dress the same the whole year through, and the need for a suit, hat, gloves, etc. would especially be minimalized. So I guess we are paving the way for the universal pajama look...

 

[dnjan]

I have definitely noticed an acceleration in the "casualness", at least in a University environment.
I started teaching in the mid 80's, and always wore a tie, dress shirt and creased pants. As did most of the other male faculty in my department.

By the early 90's, the tie was gone, and jeans were the norm for most of the male (as well as female) faculty by the late 90's.

There has been a small amount of rebound, but on any given day most of the faculty in my department will be wearing jeans. Khaki's if they are "dressing up".

Neckties usually mean a special meeting.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

.

Here in the U.S., the five biggest influences in 20th century male "casualization" were:


-- The early 1900s rage for athleticism and calisthenics, a carryover from the 1890s mania for bicycling and tennis.

-- World War I and its soft-collared wool uniform shirts, which led to the postwar decline of stiff, detachable high collars. Soft collars on shirts were a small but pioneering step toward casualization.

-- Hollywood. Almost from the beginning, many of Hollywood's directors and technical workers wore casual clothes on --and eventually off-- the set. Tinseltown actors also tended to dress very informally away from work. (Below is an early 1932 Los Angeles Times article about more and more actors wearing sweatshirts, dungarees and uncreased pants in their spare time. Sweatshirts!)

-- World War II. Lots of t-shirt wearing in the Pacific led to casually-clad postwar barbecuing in suburbia.

-- Hippies. More than any other group, they made blue jeans universal and constant.

.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

.



Incidentally ...


The newspaper article above points to a phenomenon that has rarely been addressed: the presence of "hermits" in California deserts and coastal parklands in the 1920s and '30s. Apparently, these men --a polyglot of reclusive WWI veterans, back-to-nature enthusiasts, artists, etc.-- were the 'first' hippies: they wore long hair and beards, headbands, sandals, and often lived in huts of their own making. I've seen a 1920s snapshot of one, playing a kind of mandolin in front of his hut: you'd swear he was from the '60s.


As the article points out, some Hollywood actors became interested in these "hermits" in the '30s, and began to emulate them to some extent. I suspect this was an early seed of the 1960s west coast hippie fad.


Interesting ...


.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

MC - very fascinating indeed! That's good info.

-dixon cannon

 

[Miss 1929]

I prefer Formal Fridays.

 

[Undertow]

.



Incidentally ...


The newspaper article above points to a phenomenon that has rarely been addressed: the presence of "hermits" in California deserts and coastal parklands in the 1920s and '30s. Apparently, these men --a polyglot of reclusive WWI veterans, back-to-nature enthusiasts, artists, etc.-- were the 'first' hippies: they wore long hair and beards, headbands, sandals, and often lived in huts of their own making. I've seen a 1920s snapshot of one, playing a kind of mandolin in front of his hut: you'd swear he was from the '60s.


As the article points out, some Hollywood actors became interested in these "hermits" in the '30s, and began to emulate them to some extent. I suspect this was an early seed of the 1960s west coast hippie fad.


Interesting ...


.

Wow, very interesting observation. Thanks for the article!

 

[The Good]

By no means was I around at the time, but if I had to guess, the move towards very casual attire (we're talking t-shirts, jeans, tennis shoes or trainers, and baseball caps if any hat at all) for the general population had its roots in the late '60s and 1970s. Even in the 1980s, button-down shirts (long or short sleeve) and polos were much more common than they are nowadays, where the t-shirt dominates the casual wardrobe. It's got to a point where sporting a polo, or even a short-sleeved button-down shirt is considered "fancy" or "dressy" looking. Not to mention, wearing any pants other than jeans or sweats... I suppose the modern t-shirts, jeans, tennis shoes getup really took off in the late '80s or early 1990s, continuing to present times. I'm basing all of this on pictures I've seen of these time periods by the way.

Oh well, everyone has a right to wear what they want to, in my opinion (well, as long as it's not too wild, or making too much of a statement, that is). After all, I am exercising that right by having a conservative/vintage influence on what I wear. I'm a twenty-year-old college student in southern California, and I regularly wear button-down shirts, polos, leather shoes or boots, slacks, and even jeans, but never just t-shirts anymore. I guess it's due to the fact that I consider t-shirts to be more like underwear than anything to be worn in public. I know many others dress that way, especially at my school, but I choose to dress sharp, it suits me, to be frank. I have something of a hardworking businessman's ethic about me, and I feel this should be reflected in how I dress. The same could be said for my conservative beliefs.

 

[Undertow]

Oh well, at least by 2012 we'll be back to basics wearing loincloths and furs. That is, if the radiation hasn't wiped us out entirely. Or the earthquakes, tornados, floods, solar flares, mass hysteria, etc.

I for one will be sporting a pair of wingtip uggs, plaid loincloth and genuine snake skin bow tie. And that will be upper crust.

 

[Yeps]

I prefer Formal Fridays.

I have started a minor counter-casual Friday tradition at my university called "Bowtie Fridays." Every Friday I wear a bowtie. There are only three of us who do this right now (and frankly I haven't worn a tie since coming to Italy), but it is better than nothing. The last week of school, one of the faculty caught on and wore a bowtie too.

It is kinda fun, as we are starting our own little traditional clothing trend. It is also very interesting to see how, although we dress very similar (lots of tweed), the style varies.
We range from the composer, who dresses very traditional academic. Tweed and argyle, to me (the singer), and as you have seen, I am a bit more of a dandy, to the pianist, who dresses in a much more, well, bohemian style, but still traditional, just more affected (effected? I never know which one is which.)

 

[HodgePodge]

I think the whole 'casual' approach to clothing started in the 1940s, and started really snowballing in the 1960s and 70s.

During WWII, people couldn't afford to have such luxuries as double-breasted trenchcoats, waistcoats or suit-coats. They couldn't afford to have waistcoats or fancy suits, because the fabric was needed for the war-effort. As a result, clothing started getting simpler and simpler...

Going in the "can't afford" line of reason, you'd have to back-date that to the Great Depression, when people couldn't have nice clothes not because there was war rationing, but because they didn't have two pennies to rub together.
Unless I'm mistaken the 'austerity suits' are from the war years, and those measures didn't prohibit 'fancy' suits, they just required said suits to be constructed more 'conservatively' with regards to materials usage (fewer pockets, fewer buttons, etc.).

... A hundred years ago in this country, farmers, ranchers and miners wore levis jeans. It was not considered informal or casual. It was work wear. A wall street broker would not turn his nose up at him as a slob. But he wouldn't be allowed in a fancy restaurant....

My grandma told me once that her father would never go in to town wearing his 'farm' clothes. Even back then I guess that wasn't universal though, as she also told me about having to sit in school with boys that had just finished chores and their boots stinking to high heaven.
All from a lady that cracked her kneecap in half triping over the dehumidifier in her 80s, then insisting on getting changed into something 'more presentable' than her house clothes before she would let the paramedics take her to the hospital.

...but still traditional, just more affected (effected? I never know which one is which.)

Affected is the one you're after.

 

[skyvue]

I'm hardly the first to point it out, but virtually everything that is now considered formal was once not-so-formal, replacing whatever came before it and inspiring harrumphs and disapproving looks from the elders of the day. It's been an ongoing process for decades and even centuries.

On the "proto-hippies of the 1930s and '40s" tip, Eden Ahbez, who composed the song Nature Boy that was such a big hit for Nat Cole, fit the bill.

 

[Mid-fogey]

What is "casual"...

…what is “dressing up”?

I’ve long been of the belief that dressing (whatever you call it) is most influenced by technology– sometimes in unexpected ways and from unexpected directions. A few examples:

Automatic climate control and transportation systems that make dressing for the weather unnecessary. They also drove population growth in areas that are routinely too hot to be comfortable in a coat and tie – even in the folks in the old days might have toughed it out based on habit and done so.

Automatic clothes washing machines and driers that made an easy care, lightweight wardrobe much more practical.

Better systems for communication and data transfer that allowed clothing production to move farther and farther from the end users. This allowed clothes to be made in places with increasingly lower overhead, thus making the clothes cheaper and cheaper. Large wardrobes allowed people to have "dress" and "casual" wardrobes. People became more and more accustomed to seeing and wearing lightweight “casual” clothes.

Materials technology made a wide variety of new clothing materials available. How much of what we wear now wouldn’t even exist without Nylon, for fabric, zippers, etc? In may ways, a modern wardrobe is based around cottons and synthetics.

Technology also makes it possible to look like a bum and have a platinum card in your wallet – no one has to base their trust of you on how look.

It goes on and on, but I really do believe that the major factor is technology.

I think the wardrobes that predominated in the past were a reaction to the technology of the times. While we think of those as “dress” clothes, they are actually, as worn in the Golden Era, a practical reaction to technological circumstances of the times.

I’d be interested to see what people say about this: I see a pronounced pre-WWII/post-WWII change in how clothes were worn. In pre-WWII pictures the clothes had a sort of rumpled, lived in sort of look. People looked comfortable in their suits, lolling around and such. Pants legs are often without sharp creases, or creases at all. I remember seeing the heads of state in a photo of the Versailles conference at the end of WWI and the heads of state – high rollers by any definition – were, well sort of rumpled looking.

 

[reetpleat]

..after all, he should know, right!?

"I rue the day that the Beatles were unfortunately born into this world. They are, in my mind, responsible for most of the degeneration that has happened, not only musically, but in the sense of youth orientation politically too. They are the people who made it first publicly acceptable to spit in the eye of authority." lol

You tell 'em Franky! See you in Branson!

-dixon cannon

Well, despite the jeans and motorcycle jackets of the Hamburg days, when the Beatles hit the word scene, they were wearing sharp suits, high collars, leather boots and ties. hardly the end of civilization as we know it.

 

[reetpleat]

Really? Then I guess I shouldn't attend formal parties in the U.S. dressed like this.

It must have been a horrible faux pas for me to have dressed thus and attend a White House party hostessed by the then First Lady, Mrs. Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy--ah, of course, her husband is guilty of the decline of fedoras lol lol lol

Actually i was thinking of men. And meant it would not be considered acceptable for the office. Obviously, the people in the pics look great. No offense meant. But a guy or woman in a robe would be out of place in a typical work setting. Maybe too formal.

 

[reetpleat]

.


-- Hollywood. Almost from the beginning, many of Hollywood's directors and technical workers wore casual clothes on --and eventually off-- the set. Tinseltown actors also tended to dress very informally away from work. (Below is an early 1932 Los Angeles Times article about more and more actors wearing sweatshirts, dungarees and uncreased pants in their spare time. Sweatshirts!)

-

.

True. A big part of that shift from East coast to west coast as a focus of culture. The west was more inclined to be casual and less formal, and the weather demanded looser lighter clothing. The lounge jacket, sport shirts etc were a California innovation in a lot of ways.

Also, the rise of the middle class. Working people, when they went out, often dressed up. Middle class kids and upper class kids like to dress down.

 

[Undertow]

I think there are many factors, too many to count, that have moved us from "formal" to "casual".

Technology, fashion, utility, culture, etc. Consider that at one time, a fedora was considered rude and redneck; a man of standing wore a stiff bowler, homburg, or top hat. That shifted in the early part of the century, after the first War. People began taking up all sorts of hats, including fedoras. Then the general public shifted to hats only for the professional or smartly dressed. That gave way to hats merely for utility, followed by no hats at all. Now, as many of you are familiar, you're some kind of freak to wear a hat outside of costume/fancy dress.

Overall, it boils down to how we as a society want to appear to others and what we consider to be "formal" or "casual" by today's standards. Three piece wool suits with high-crown fedoras seem entirely too anachronistic for regular wear (not to say someone doesn't do this every day) while a pair of khakis and a button down shirt are nearly "White-tie" attire for most of us. And with the current obsession of being "laid back", "relaxed", "tolerant" and "cool", alot of what used to be too-casual has become every day attire (e.g. flip flops, shorts, tank tops, pajama pants). And it will only move on from there to a point beyond the horizon that we can't see. Do you think people in the '30's even knew what "flip flops and pajama pants" were? Sure, those articles may have existed in some form or another, but no one would have imagined those being worn together.

One day people will look at fedoras as we see tricorn hats - silly, useless and old. Baseball caps probably won't be "formal", but consider that it's "cool" to purchase a fitted ball cap with price tags and brand names screaming from the bill. Folks, it's the natural progression of society. One year gold is in, the next year it's silver; then titanium, followed by lol Lead, Cadmium and Mercury. Who knows, by you get my point.

 

[reetpleat]

I think there are many factors, too many to count, that have moved us from "formal" to "casual".

Technology, fashion, utility, culture, etc. Consider that at one time, a fedora was considered rude and redneck; a man of standing wore a stiff bowler, homburg, or top hat. That shifted in the early part of the century, after the first War. People began taking up all sorts of hats, including fedoras. Then the general public shifted to hats only for the professional or smartly dressed. That gave way to hats merely for utility, followed by no hats at all. Now, as many of you are familiar, you're some kind of freak to wear a hat outside of costume/fancy dress.

Overall, it boils down to how we as a society want to appear to others and what we consider to be "formal" or "casual" by today's standards. Three piece wool suits with high-crown fedoras seem entirely too anachronistic for regular wear (not to say someone doesn't do this every day) while a pair of khakis and a button down shirt are nearly "White-tie" attire for most of us. And with the current obsession of being "laid back", "relaxed", "tolerant" and "cool", alot of what used to be too-casual has become every day attire (e.g. flip flops, shorts, tank tops, pajama pants). And it will only move on from there to a point beyond the horizon that we can't see. Do you think people in the '30's even knew what "flip flops and pajama pants" were? Sure, those articles may have existed in some form or another, but no one would have imagined those being worn together.

One day people will look at fedoras as we see tricorn hats - silly, useless and old. Baseball caps probably won't be "formal", but consider that it's "cool" to purchase a fitted ball cap with price tags and brand names screaming from the bill. Folks, it's the natural progression of society. One year gold is in, the next year it's silver; then titanium, followed by lol Lead, Cadmium and Mercury. Who knows, by you get my point.

I can't imagine attire getting much more casual. I mean, a guy in sweats or pajama pants, flip flops, and a t shirt can't get more comfortable without being naked. And that would be cold. I imagine it will become more common to wear this stuff to work or nice places, but that is happening already in a lot of offices. perhaps someday people will be too lazy to change and will just walk around in their pajamas, or people will walk around in their underwear, not able to be bothered about putting on any other clothing.

 

[Pompidou]

5,300 years ago, the well dressed gentleman never left the cave without his hat, cloak and surcoat. The copper age man had a taste for quality, having his complex leather shoes made by a local professional cobbler. His clothes were tailored to fit from a range of different leathers. If Ötzi the Iceman were alive today, he would sigh dejectedly at what fashion has become. To answer the question, the slide towards casual began as early as the Middle Bronze Age.

 

[Yeps]

I can't imagine attire getting much more casual. I mean, a guy in sweats or pajama pants, flip flops, and a t shirt can't get more comfortable without being naked. And that would be cold. I imagine it will become more common to wear this stuff to work or nice places, but that is happening already in a lot of offices. perhaps someday people will be too lazy to change and will just walk around in their pajamas, or people will walk around in their underwear, not able to be bothered about putting on any other clothing.

That seems reasonable. Underwear (if you're a prude) or nude with flip flops in the summer, snuggies with uggs in the winter.