When did the Slide Toward Casual Begin in Earnest?

[LizzieMaine]

Maybe the way to think about it is this: when did being in any way uncomfortable become unacceptable? It was uncomfortable to be a six year old in the first grade in a starched dress, sitting straight upright on a hard wooden chair bolted to the floor, but the experience taught you to accept that some things in life were not going to be comfortable whether you liked it or not. And if you didn't feel like learning that, the teacher would come around and clip you one with her ruler. And I don't remember anyone ever asking "why?" unless they wanted to get clipped again.

So when did that change? When did people become unwilling to tolerate any inconvenience or discomfort in daily life? Find that answer, and you'll figure out where the Slide Toward Casual really began.

 

[Pompidou]

Maybe the way to think about it is this: when did being in any way uncomfortable become unacceptable? It was uncomfortable to be a six year old in the first grade in a starched dress, sitting straight upright on a hard wooden chair bolted to the floor, but the experience taught you to accept that some things in life were not going to be comfortable whether you liked it or not. And if you didn't feel like learning that, the teacher would come around and clip you one with her ruler. And I don't remember anyone ever asking "why?" unless they wanted to get clipped again.

So when did that change? When did people become unwilling to tolerate any inconvenience or discomfort in daily life? Find that answer, and you'll figure out where the Slide Toward Casual really began.

The increase in casual parallels an increase in education. If you go back to the 50s or further a person could make a good living as a high school dropout. Think about what people wore in the 50s. If you go back to the early 1900s and the 1800s, you really didn't need school at all. These days, a BA is about as handy as a high school diploma, and all the good jobs a BA would get you 20 years ago go to MAs and higher. The higher the baseline of formal dress, the lower the baseline of formal education.

You have to figure, the decreasing importance of blue collar labor, and the increasing importance of white collar labor - a focus on thinking outside the box and entrepreneurism instead of aspiring to be a cog in the machine in an assembly line -- it certainly decreases the tendency to be like everyone else. Unless I'm totally off base, the purpose of a man's formal attire is to look just like every other man. Education, individualism, and informalism. Think of cutting edge work environments like Google, where executives thinktank in onsite basketball courts and such. Companies want us relaxed, thinking, getting the creativity flowing. It's where the money is.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Unless I'm totally off base, the purpose of a man's formal attire is to look just like every other man. Education, individualism, and informalism. Think of cutting edge work environments like Google, where executives thinktank in onsite basketball courts and such. Companies want us relaxed, thinking, getting the creativity flowing. It's where the money is.

Except that even with all that, we now have a culture where instead of every man looking just like every other man in a coat and tie, we have one where every man looks like every other man dressed like Charlie Brown -- t-shirt, shorts, ballcap.

I dunno, it just seems to me more got done when people didn't let themselves get *too* comfortable. Keep in mind the vast majority of people today don't work in cutting edge thought-provoking creative jobs -- last time I advertised for a new janitor, I got an application from some poor soul with an M. A. in English who showed up in a smelly, dirty T shirt and sneakers that looked like they'd been hanging off a telephone wire all winter. If he can't keep himself looking squared away, how's he expect me to think he's going to do a decent job with a mop?

 

[Undertow]

I think you're on to something Lizzie (i.e. when did we start letting ourselves get too comfortable).

I think it must have been the 60's and 70's when the anti-establishment movement really started gaining steam among the youth of the country; with earlier roots in both post-war eras.

It seems as if WWI and WWII brought on some kind of yearning to get back to comfort in one's own home. We had boys and men getting sent out to godforsaken foriegn countries, starving, fighting and dying. When the fortunate were returned home, the only thing they cared about was walking in the door, eating, feeling comfortable. Eventually they moved on to careers and kids.

Perhaps the slide to casual is one giant result of Shell Shock. And we can see it really manifested in the baby-boomer generation. (I'm not throwing stones folks, I walk around in underwear and a tank top when I'm at home with reckless abandon .)

It's just a theory, but when you're getting shot at all day and then you're plunked down at home in your mediocre life, wearing suit and hat doesn't seem to hold as much water as it used to. Why bother? Who cares? And when you have kids, you more or less unintentionally instill this feeling into them, they grow up, fight a war, and come home feeling even worse than you did. It would make sense anyway... [huh]

 

[JimWagner]

Probably a little bit of everything that's been suggested in this thread is true. I think that it's just been a gradual evolutionary change in dress spread out over many many years.

Go back a couple of hundred years and "proper dress" would only be relevant in the context of the nobility and very rich. The rest of us would have been poor working slobs in rags. Once the industrial revolution got well under way and an actual middle class developed then different standards evolved. But don't think for one minute that the "upper crust" dressed the same as the middle class or in any way considered them equals.

In this country there's been a very real explosion of middle class and what passes for middle class today is unbelievably rich by the standards of as little as 50 years ago. And other than wanting as much money as the very rich the middle class today could care less what the so called upper class thinks or how they dress. Or what anyone else thinks about how they themselves dress.

Look at some of the "society" columns of the past and just try to relate at all to the gushing descriptions of what the high society types were wearing.

It may be that the boomers (and I'm one) were the largest cohort to no longer be impressed with "society", I don't know. Time will tell.

I think I can say that the very informal dress today, especially among the younger crowd, which is under 40 to me now, has little to do with rebellion or protest against the "establishment". They just see no reason to dress up.

When simply putting on leather shoes instead of sneakers draws comment a la, "Why are you so dressed up?" you know it's a different world.

 

[Yeps]

Go back a couple of hundred years and "proper dress" would only be relevant in the context of the nobility and very rich. The rest of us would have been poor working slobs in rags. Once the industrial revolution got well under way and an actual middle class developed then different standards evolved. But don't think for one minute that the "upper crust" dressed the same as the middle class or in any way considered them equals.

At least in the 1700s, proper dress applied to the poor working slobs (yay living history on a tenant farm) too. A man was considered undressed if he was not wearing a waiscoat, a neckerchief, and a hat. Sure the materials and fits weren't fancy, but the idea was still much more fixed and seems more formal than now.

 

[The Good]

At least in the 1700s, proper dress applied to the poor working slobs (yay living history on a tenant farm) too. A man was considered undressed if he was not wearing a waiscoat, a neckerchief, and a hat. Sure the materials and fits weren't fancy, but the idea was still much more fixed and seems more formal than now.

Somewhere, I remember reading this; a man was considered underdressed if he was not wearing a waistcoat, hat, and neckerchief, as you've said. Now, since you mention that you were a reenactor, would you say that what are generally perceived today (or at least in the 19th century to the mid 20th century) as "flamboyant" colors, were actually more common than more subdued, simple, and somber colors, such as black, grey, and even brown? For instance, was some sort of green or red waistcoat actually more common during the 1700s than say, a black one?

 

[Yeps]

Somewhere, I remember reading this; a man was considered underdressed if he was not wearing a waistcoat, hat, and neckerchief, as you've said. Now, since you mention that you were a reenactor, would you say that what are generally perceived today (or at least in the 19th century to the mid 20th century) as "flamboyant" colors, were actually more common than more subdued, simple, and somber colors, such as black, grey, and even brown? For instance, was some sort of green or red waistcoat actually more common during the 1700s than say, a black one?

At least in 1771 (the year that the living history museum I worked at was perpetually in), poor people at least, so I assume they were imitating uppity folk, really liked bright colors. Not that those colors stayed bright. We have an awful lot in blue, because woad is really easy to grow, and it makes great dye. There is also a lot of green, although there are a fair amount of whites/natural linens, as well as browns. Red is very interesting, because it was used a lot, even though the red dye used at the time was horrible and faded very quickly.

edit: and he wasn't considered underdressed, like going to a white tie event in jeans, but rather undressed, like going to the office in briefs.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

If you believe Apparel Arts, the "decline" was in full force in 1932.

bk

 

[Mid-fogey]

There is...

Maybe the way to think about it is this: when did being in any way uncomfortable become unacceptable? It was uncomfortable to be a six year old in the first grade in a starched dress, sitting straight upright on a hard wooden chair bolted to the floor, but the experience taught you to accept that some things in life were not going to be comfortable whether you liked it or not. And if you didn't feel like learning that, the teacher would come around and clip you one with her ruler. And I don't remember anyone ever asking "why?" unless they wanted to get clipped again.

So when did that change? When did people become unwilling to tolerate any inconvenience or discomfort in daily life? Find that answer, and you'll figure out where the Slide Toward Casual really began.

…definitely something here and I’m guilty to a degree. I have all the casual clothes that LM describes and wear them on weekends and in the evening after work because they are more comfortable. I will say that the transition to causal is so complete that you can be made emotionally uncomfortable by dressing up.

I read a reminiscence from a woman who as a young woman was a secretary for Colonial Williamsburg. She saw Mr. Rockefeller attending a meeting on a stifling August afternoon. While all the younger men in meeting had removed their jackets, which by the way were something like seersucker, Mr. Rockefeller kept on his jacket – and he was wearing a dark three piece suit! The heat and humidity made no difference to him. He’d been trained from his youth that he had certain obligations and comfort took a back seat to them.

Having before in this thread said that I believed that technology is a major player, I’ll further say that “me-ism” is also huge. People don’t have to look at themselves. Even in a mirror they can’t really see themselves. They care about how they feel, how the clothes make them feel and not what others have to look at. The notion of dressing for others is alien. The notion that they are part of a group that might have norms is alien. The notion of thinking of someone else first is alien.

 

[vintage68]

I'm no expert, but I'm betting the 1960's really kicked the slide into high gear, and the 70's put the nail in the coffin.

 

[The Lonely Navigator]

Dhermann1: There should be a special thread for "Conversations we always seem to drift into, that never really go anywhere or prove anything".

lol :eusa_clap

Like Dixon Cannon w/ regards to the PJs - I too give up.:eusa_doh: To me, it has always been "normal" to dress decently. This thread has only made me realize how "different" I am, but I've been doing this for so long that I don't think anything of it anymore.[huh]