Culture, Aesthetics and Fashion Discussion

[droogist]

I certainly agree that the type of people who founded the US, and their culture (or lack thereof), has contributed to the heritage which can still be seen today.

But the circumstances during the foundation have also added a few twists, I think. Correct me if I'm wrong, US history is far from my specialty... The US was freeing itself from the tyranny of the Brits. At the core of the constitution lies the fact that government can't be trusted, not really. Hence the right to bear arms/form a militia and the stress on self-reliance.

This might mean that there is a slightly paranoid streak right at the core of the constitution. As little governmental interference as possible is preferred. This would certainly foster the myth of the self-made man, the notion that you can (or have to) do everything yourself by working hard enough. You make it happen. If you don't, it's your own laziness. Blame is placed on the poor, weak, homeless. Welfare, healthcare and so on is up to private insurance or goodwill. Minimum education is given for free to those who can't afford it any other way.

The humane way would be to let the government take care of these basic things, but since it can't be trusted and it is peoples own fault they need help anyway, well...

tott,
I don't think it's appropriate to infer a national hostility towards the poor from a quick reading of the US Constitution. It is indeed true that most of the drafters of the constitution favored a limited federal government, hence the elaborate system of checks and balances in the American system. But you have to keep in mind that "small government" back then did not specifically imply a laissez-faire attitude towards free-market capitalism, as it does today; after all, capitalism was itself in its infancy at the time. Vast personal wealth was still very much the domain of the aristocracy, and as a result many of the "founding fathers" were in fact largely hostile to businesses, corporations, and the like. The limitations on government written into the constitution were primarily concerned with preserving the rights of the member states, and those of the individual.

It's unfair to assume that the laissez-faire attitude that characterizes US economic policies are indicative of a general attitude among Americans as a whole. I think it's a very small and concentrated group of people who hold those views, and unfortunately they've come to dominate the government...Until very recently economic movements in the country for the most part coincided with those in Western Europe: industrial revolution, labour movement, etc. The erosion of the welfare state is a relatively new development in American politics that began with the rise of Reaganomics in the 80s, and corporate interests have ensured its continuation. I'm willing to bet that 99% of Americans think it's scandalous that there's no national healthcare system; unfortunately the 1% that controls the purse strings thinks otherwise.

 

[faust]

tott,
I don't think it's appropriate to infer a national hostility towards the poor from a quick reading of the US Constitution. It is indeed true that most of the drafters of the constitution favored a limited federal government, hence the elaborate system of checks and balances in the American system. But you have to keep in mind that "small government" back then did not specifically imply a laissez-faire attitude towards free-market capitalism, as it does today; after all, capitalism was itself in its infancy at the time. Vast personal wealth was still very much the domain of the aristocracy, and as a result many of the "founding fathers" were in fact largely hostile to businesses, corporations, and the like. The limitations on government written into the constitution were primarily concerned with preserving the rights of the member states, and those of the individual.

It's unfair to assume that the laissez-faire attitude that characterizes US economic policies are indicative of a general attitude among Americans as a whole. I think it's a very small and concentrated group of people who hold those views, and unfortunately they've come to dominate the government...Until very recently economic movements in the country for the most part coincided with those in Western Europe: industrial revolution, labour movement, etc. The erosion of the welfare state is a relatively new development in American politics that began with the rise of Reaganomics in the 80s, and corporate interests have ensured its continuation. I'm willing to bet that 99% of Americans think it's scandalous that there's no national healthcare system; unfortunately the 1% that controls the purse strings thinks otherwise.

I don't know about that, droogist. I think it's a widely held view. I'm not sure if you read my (in)famous ramblings on page 2 of this thread, but here is a quote by Kurt Vonnegut (sarcastic, of course, but what is sarcasm but a reaction to what one sees and is angry about?) that's a small part of that post;

I think Kurt Vonnegut sums it up best in Slaughterhouse 5, "America is the wealthiest nation on Earth, but its people are mainly poor, and por Americans are urged to hate themselves. To quote the American humorist Kin Hummbard, 'It ain't no disgrace to be poor, but it might as well be.' It is in fact a crime for an American to be poor, even though America is a nation of poor. Every other nation has folk traditions of men who were poor but extremely wise and virtuous, and therefore more estimable than anyone with power and gold. No such tales are told by the American poor. They mock themselves and glorify thier betters. The meanest eating or drinking establishment, owned by a man who is himself poor, is very likely to have a sign on its wall asking this cruel question: 'If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?'"

 

[meme527]

Vast personal wealth was still very much the domain of the aristocracy, and as a result many of the "founding fathers" were in fact largely hostile to businesses, corporations, and the like...

the "founding fathers" were children of aristocracy themselves, not working class people. jefferson and washington, for instance, owned slaves.

meme

 

[Mr-Dale]

I'm not sure either that we can just simply attacht the Us poorer people, just like droogist, but then again, that qoute in faust's post really speaks to me too. And I hear it very well. It's a bit undecided to me, arguments have been given for both statements, so I am not gonna sum my undecisive reasons up...

 

[droogist]

the "founding fathers" were children of aristocracy themselves, not working class people. jefferson and washington, for instance, owned slaves.

Jefferson and Washington were wealthy slaveowners but according to the definition of the time were not aristocrats as they did not belong to the hereditary nobility (in this case, of England). I never said anything about them being working class.

faust, with all due respect to Kurt V, I don't think he's 100% on the money here. Glorifying the wealthy and hating the poor aren't one and the same. Americans do indeed put the self-made millionaire on a pedestal, but there's also a pedestal for the working-class hero; by which I mean the romantic archetype of the hard-working, underpaid representative of the "real" America that's become such an unavoidable political cliché. It's a myth, but a myth that a lot of the American poor have come to identify very strongly with.

 

[irmelle]

first of all, define "culture"

are you talking about high culture? the culture of beauty, class, etc.? or are you talking about aesthetics in general?
i find the differences in perceptions of beauty astounding in different cultures across the world. did you know, for instance, that in practically every ethnic culture the "creators" of any kind of beauty (weavers, potters, painters, sculptors, fashion designers, musicians) have good social standing? in america today, most youth know the names daria werbowy, gemma ward, kate moss, naomi campbell, etc., as well as designer names and many famous painters. i haven't been to europe enough to know for sure, but i'd imagine that the average bear may know more about aesthetics than americans...
however.
i think that due to globalization, there is a lowering of standards across the world. by being able to talk to people in seconds who live thousands of miles away, by being able to search the internet for an obscure topic and get the results instantaneously without doing any work, by getting what we want when we want it, i think globalised countries have started to suffer from the INSTANT GRATIFICATION way of life. this leads to "cultural cheat sheets"- knowing the broad, famous parts of fashion (designer names, famous models) and nothing else, and most may know a few artist names (perlman, picasso, pollack, van Gogh, beethoven) but hardly anything else.
people don't place as much value on doing work any more.
instant gratification is a culprit.

 

[AlmostGirl]

Diplomacy, International Relations & Fashion

This thread seems to be a good place to start since it is about aesthetics and culture. I am working on a research project on Diplomacy & Fashion, specifically identities projected via clothing. I an curious why it is that in diplomacy one rarely sees clothing beyond the dominant paradigm of western business attire when a large part of diplomacy is about showcasing and further national causes. I would image that "ethnic" or "cultural" clothing would be showcased. If anyone knows of any resources on this subject I woudl be most grateful. You can find me at my blog http://almostgirl.coffeespoons.org Almost Girl

http://almostgirl.coffeespoons.org/?p=121

 

[meme527]

hey almost:

as far as academic work in fashion goes, i think valerie steele might be a good place to start. she's written quite a lot on power as reflected in fashion.

i think the easy answer to your question though is that the winner makes the rules. europe colonized as much of the rest of the world as it could, so it makes sense that they would dictate the fashion standards. people like to do business with people who look like them, and nothing says "business" like a business suit, right?

i'm sure there is more, but that is my thought, off-the-top-of-my-head like. good luck with the research project.

meme

 

[AlmostGirl]

I hadn't thought of Valerie Steele, good call. I have been using a lot of Eicher, particularly her collection on Ethnicity and Dress. My Bibliography so far looks like

Bercovtich & Elgstrom: Culture and International Mediation: Exploring Theoretical and Empirical Linkages: Internation Negotiation 6: 3-23, 2002.

Faure, G. O and Sjostedt, G (1993) “Culture and Negotiation: An Introduction” in G.O Faure and J.Z Rubin, editors, Culture and Negotiation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 1-13


Nash, M. (1989), The Cauldron of Ethnicity in the Modern World, Chicago: University of Chicago.

“Damhorst, M.L. (1990) In search of a common thread: Classification of information communicated through dress. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 8 (2), 1-12.

Cohen, Raymond. Theater of Power: The Art of Diplomatic Signalling. London, UK: Longman Group, 1987.

Johnson, Kim K. P. & Sharron J. Lennon.”Introduction: Appearance and Social Power “Appearnace and Power. Oxford, UK: Berg Oxford International Publishers, 1999.

and some regular diplomatic theorists Morgenthau, Magalhae’: The pure concept of diplomacy / José Calvet de Magalhães; translated by Bernardo Futscher Pereira. New York : Greenwood Press, 1988. pp.1-13.

(Bull, 173) Anarchical Society, (Frey & Frey, 412) Der Derian: Mediating Estrangement: A Theory for Diplomacy, Sartori, Fearon

 

[adorefaith]

Goodness gracious.....what a thread...!!
it has taken me a long time to work my way through these 19 pages, but what a ride....you all just fascinate and inspire me completely....

i am far too ignorant on the grand scale of things to muster up any valid comment or insight of the entire situation, so I guess i can only speak of my own personal experience and what its led me to believe, thus far....

as an australian now living in canada, and having been raised almost completely in the affluent european bubble that is the "eastern suburbs" of sydney, my experience is probably wildly different to other australians.....but i'll comment anyway....

the moment I am most reminded of came about 6 months ago.....my sickeningly stylish Hungarian grandparents took me on a trip to NYC....my first....a place i have been wanting desperately to go for years... both in their mid 70's/early 80's, my grandparents survived the Holocaust in Europe, lived in Israel and then immigrated to Sydney, where they transplanted themselves into a mini-Europe and didnt really venture out....anyhow, my Grandmother insisted we go to a different Broadway show every evening of our stay (we were far too jet-lagged to fulfill this promise but we tried..!)....we spent days shopping, of course.....and showed up each evening for the theatre, looking not like we do when we go to the park or the grocery store...but like we were doing what we in fact were---going to the THEATRE.... much to our disappointment, most everyone was decked out in too-tight jeans, stilettos, and sparkly tops.....my grandfather, who worked in textiles and ladies wear for years & years, was utterly shocked...

He couldnt get over it.....JEANS....he all but refuses to been seen in public with me when I wear denim....laughs in the faces of the salespeople when they try to persuade him their denim is worth the $400 pricetag..."where I come from...", he says, "denim is for the peasants.....and even then, they refuse to wear it....would rather scrimp and save for years to own a pant of wool or linen"...to wear denim, to them, is to pick up the mud from the earth and smear it over your legs...lol....useless

As for Australian culture and fashion, whoever said it is sports-obsessed hit the nail on the head......I was exposed to a VERY different side of "Australia" than most....my family seem to have an innate sense of style....and more importantly of QUALITY, when it comes to everything...clothing, food, coffee....it is not about looking trendy or even so much about "fashion" as it is about quality.....it almost goes hand in hand with that incredible work ethic that my grandfather, as a European immigrant who went from barely a penny to millions, instilled in all of us.....working hard for what you have....and enjoying it not because something necessarily just looks good or is trendy, but because it is of superb quality... because it tells a story, and will travel with you throughout your lifetime without a tear or a hole...

Fashion and culture to them isnt even as much about personal expression.....i think that came with a later generation, at least in my case,....but like I said, about quality and longevity....and about relativity....my grandmother will absolutely feel justified in spending thousands on one item of clothing that is of superb quality... but will shop around for hours to find the cheapest bananas because to buy them at the 'trendy' fruit shop for 3 times the price is just absurd to her, when you can get the same quality fruit down the road at the dumpy stall for literally peanuts..!

I have to say that while style and appreciation for beauty can be acquired and learned....i believe, from what i see, that the seed is planted very VERY early on....almost as if you were either born with it or not.....it has nothing to do with being born into money or status....but rather everything to do with being born into an environment where appreciation of standards and of quality is stressed....where you are given boundaries and an appreciation for things of beauty and are expected to honor that and understand it, before you criticize and rebel against it--kind of like that notion that you have to know the rules before you break them....

my parents, and grandparents, insisted i understand and appreciate quality not because anyone else would, or should, but because it translates into every area of your life--fashion being just one very small aspect. Quality not only of clothing, food etc was demanded....but of everything else too....quality of THOUGHT...of ethical character....of speech....art and fashion are one slice of the pie....but if you can appreciate and work to understand a beautiful but difficult piece of clothing, then it makes it one step easier to work toward understand an abstract thought, or a cryptic poem...or humankind altogether...

It takes effort...hard hard work....but what a life this would be without that kind of pursuit...everything is beautiful, somehow, to someone---what an incredible challenge....to try and recognize that

 

[screenage]

^Hey, I really don't think that the quality of any clothes warrants a price tag of thousands, I think people just put values on things, just as you grand dad may not perceive jeans to be particulary "worth it" I'm sure there are many people who would argue to the death how important a good pair of jeans are regardless of their pricetag

 

[Deleted member 7575]

Jefferson and Washington were wealthy slaveowners but according to the definition of the time were not aristocrats as they did not belong to the hereditary nobility (in this case, of England). I never said anything about them being working class.

faust, with all due respect to Kurt V, I don't think he's 100% on the money here. Glorifying the wealthy and hating the poor aren't one and the same. Americans do indeed put the self-made millionaire on a pedestal, but there's also a pedestal for the working-class hero; by which I mean the romantic archetype of the hard-working, underpaid representative of the "real" America that's become such an unavoidable political cliché. It's a myth, but a myth that a lot of the American poor have come to identify very strongly with.

unfortunately American society and any other societies that so heavily embraces capitalism do not really romanticize the working class. No one aspires to work in a factory or scrub floors. People aspire to go to college so they can work in an office and make a 6 digit salary (ideally). Especially in a world where Paris Hilton is idolized and the power of business tycoons are flaunted above the government, the value of the noble proleteriot/working class hero is just about dead.

 

[PrinceOfCats]

Interestingly, in yon recent study the USA has the lowest social mobility out of any developed nation. The UK, which spends most of its energies copying the USA, has the second lowest social mobility. Who would've thought it...

 

[droogist]

unfortunately American society and any other societies that so heavily embraces capitalism do not really romanticize the working class. No one aspires to work in a factory or scrub floors. People aspire to go to college so they can work in an office and make a 6 digit salary (ideally). Especially in a world where Paris Hilton is idolized and the power of business tycoons are flaunted above the government, the value of the noble proleteriot/working class hero is just about dead.

No, of course the proletariat isn't an aspirational class, but that doesn't mean that it's not romanticized. My point was that while poverty may be a hated social ill, and no more so than in the US, that animosity isn't necessarily directed at the working classes themselves.

 

[adorefaith]

"I'm sure there are many people who would argue to the death how important a good pair of jeans are regardless of their pricetag"

....That was my point.....how different the idea of quality and value is to those of different upbringings, cultures, etc....one idea of quality over the other isnt superior, or even important--my thought was more that the idea of being able to APPRECIATE and respect these ideas of quality and beauty, however different or difficult they are to your own, is the true challenge, and the real lesson....

 

[screenage]

If I only bought clothes because of quality I daresay I would be naked

 

[battles]

^ if man adjusts nature to himself and not himself to nature, he will never capture its inexplicable magic; which is what fashion is all about. inferior to that, there are only two requirements that need to be met with clothing:

1. decency
2. warmth

if it covers the required "taboo" areas (bottoms etc) then check 1, and if it will keep you warm in the current and predicted (as far as it can be) weather climate then check 2 and that is it. but then again, that'd be "fashion for dummies" and to refer to the context as clothing as one of basic human needs.

 

[fixoid]

many peoples comments seem to indicate that they feel we are falling in to some kind of cultural void rendered in denim ,plastic and logos and that this void is then rebranded and sold back to us by entities that think you should have to pay promote there product.(there is much poetic license here but i hope you get the idea)
i don't not see this as being the whole story.with the rise of the internet also comes the rise of the personal and obscure.when whatever you want is only 2clicks away you don't have to look for it on mtv anymore.the internet is casing untold disruption to traditional media(only line ny times now more popular than the paper version,blogs and the us election) and distribution channels(p2p lawsuits, go get episode 3 off bittorrent,ebay)and the fashion industry utilizes both of these things heavily. people are no longer forced to consume that which do not wish to and many do not wish to consume miss hiltons latest dog carrier.
the current rise of the individual is quite well documented and i think is well demonstrated by many of the diverse attitudes in this thread.but your wasting your lives, in the time many of you spent one of those meticulously crafted posts you could have been watching fox

 

[softgrey]

fixoid...

welcome sir...i like your style......

 

[softgrey]

Jefferson and Washington were wealthy slaveowners but according to the definition of the time were not aristocrats as they did not belong to the hereditary nobility (in this case, of England). I never said anything about them being working class.

faust, with all due respect to Kurt V, I don't think he's 100% on the money here. Glorifying the wealthy and hating the poor aren't one and the same. Americans do indeed put the self-made millionaire on a pedestal, but there's also a pedestal for the working-class hero; by which I mean the romantic archetype of the hard-working, underpaid representative of the "real" America that's become such an unavoidable political cliché. It's a myth, but a myth that a lot of the American poor have come to identify very strongly with.

good post......
i think that people forget to use the dictionary
and the media (and hip hop)
have bastardized the meanings of so many things...

ie-the term aristocrat or the term socialite...
they used to relate to your origins and 'bloodline'..
now people think it's just about how rich you are...or how flashy...
which is the difference btw new money and 'old money'...