I'm a forty-year-old PA housewife who has always worn a dress in public. And not just any dress; they've all been homemade. Since I'm a conservative Mennonite, my dresses are made over the same pattern, and their purpose is identity—identity with "my group." For some years, I did this with the understanding that such wear was pleasing to God. At this point, I am confident that it does not displease Him, but neither am I convinced that a skirt is superior to a pair of slacks; in other words, I no longer feel constrained in this uniform: Once I realized I was free to stop wearing it, I became free to continue wearing it.
Because of how I dress, I've thought a lot about group identity, about the fads and fashions that flow through even groups like ours (just as they did when most women wear skirts, hems ascend and descend regularly, though here, hardly more than six inches in span over a century or two). There are trend-setters in our community; there are conformists, there are people nudging all the borders, some pushing for "how we always did, but just a mite plainer to be safe" and some for "new and original." Few would state it in words.
Your words here about the way we dress, then, while I enjoyed them, say little that I have not already thought. What fascinates me is that walking about within our uniforms are many different reasons for wearing them, just as in Covid, one was never sure whether the mask-wearer near one was doing so out of fear of disease or love of neighbor, out of fear of government or fear of media or because they liked to accessorize their clothing.
I absolutely love serious cultural takes on fashion and personal style, and I also love how this is applicable to every other way we engage with others charitably and thoughtfully.
Great article and cool to read about your experience with VMI!
I love the Transcendentalists and one thing that I've noticed is that Transcendentalism as understood by many modern Americans tends to be a pretty bastardized version of the original. People like to glom on to the quotes about marching to the beat of your own drummer and the like while ignoring that historical and cultural context Emerson and Thoreau were writing in.
I'm not sure what they'd think of our hyper-individualized culture we live in now. Maybe they'd think it'd be pretty silly?
I do think for individualism to mean anything you've got to be embedded in a tradition or community that gives some structure and then some space to make slight innovations. Your innovations don't mean anything if there's no context for it. Matthew Crawford talked about this in The World Beyond Your head in relation to organ craftsmen. I'll need to re-read it.
Anyways, thanks for giving me more grist for the mental mill! It was a great piece to read.
I definitely agree. One can easily quote Transcendentalists in order to justify a hyper-individual position while too easily ignoring their broader project of developing a fulfilling and virtuous life. I'm confident Emerson and Thoreau would groan if they saw the swaths of clothing; as Thoreau writes about luxuries in Walden: "[most are] positive hinderances to the elevation of mankind."
In my mind, the point that individualism presupposes a community is one the strengths of interpersonalist philosophy. By starting with the other (human and non-human), it puts the horse in front the cart, if you will. Nice connection to Crawford. I've heard you mention him on the AoM podcast many times. I need to pick that up!
I’m curious how the emerging emphasis on cultivating and curating a specific, named aesthetic (e.g., dark academia, cottagecore, uglycore) fits into this conversation. In one hand, it seems there’s an emphasis on individuality— you choose the aesthetic that speaks to you, and such aesthetics are fluid over time— and yet the social media feeds that collectively curate these aesthetics can be at times rather strictly policed (e.g., posters posting outfits and letting the world comment on if they are “dark academia enough”). Additionally— and I’m still trying to understand this trend as a millennial outsider to a Gen-Z world— it seems like an aesthetic is not just about clothing but is all-encompassing, including personality traits, entertainment consumption, sexuality, and emotional postures toward the world. It’s perhaps not that different from the Goth movement or hippie culture, but now there are hundreds of alternative aesthetics defined and shared digitally. You may not know another person in your physical community who adopts this aesthetic but there are plenty on the internet, so you’re both individual and conformist, perhaps. Anyone else have thoughts on this?
This is such a great comment! I think you’re right about how "aesthetics" has been expanded to mean something closer to identity, ethos, or just "vibe." It’s certainly no longer referring to a meaningful discussion of the beautiful. My 2 cents is that these micro-trends are ultimately a version of rebelling against the "masses" (ie. I’m not normie), and I think the movements lead to further and further niche. There is some community (online at least) but still the knee-jerk reaction of distinguishing the self contra others.
While I agree that individualism is a defining characteristic, I would argue that it is not as monolithic as is often asserted. Even within this article there is mention of a desire to fit in with clothing trends. People actually do want to be a part of a group and especially within movements there tends to develop a kind of group think where there is little tolerance for divergent opinion. I would add a nuance to the individualist perspective by saying that people desperately want to think of themselves as individual and as unique and therefore as having value, but they still unconsciously operate with a herd mentality much of the time. That is not a statement arguing against the perspective that individualism endemic to our culture, it’s simply a nuancing. We still often act—and even dress—in collectivist ways as long as we can preserve the assessment of ourselves as independent and unconstrained.
Thanks for the comment! I think you're right. There is certainly a "sameness" of modern style that is largely defined by group think / fitting in. I actually wrote about this a few weeks ago on my Substack. I think the particular brand of individualism mentioned in the essay only makes sense with the "sameness" as the basis for its overcorrection. So, these two form a sort of dialectical conflict that we will always have to negotiate.
This is such a rich essay, so much to chew on! In all seriousness, do you think Thoreau and Emerson applied Transcendentalist thought to their own wardrobes? To me, they seemed to follow the fashions of the time more or less (which if so, presents an interesting paradox of sorts), but menswear isn’t my strongest area, so I’m genuinely curious.
Thank you! That's a great question. I'm actually not sure about Emerson, but Thoreau is a fan of (one might have guessed) the plain and practical. He was certainly against the "new" and constantly changing trends (made possible by early industry), which would make him critical of fast fashion as well. This is a great little overview of his clothing thoughts as he wrote about them in Walden: https://simplicitycollective.com/thoreau/thoreau-on-clothing
I'm a forty-year-old PA housewife who has always worn a dress in public. And not just any dress; they've all been homemade. Since I'm a conservative Mennonite, my dresses are made over the same pattern, and their purpose is identity—identity with "my group." For some years, I did this with the understanding that such wear was pleasing to God. At this point, I am confident that it does not displease Him, but neither am I convinced that a skirt is superior to a pair of slacks; in other words, I no longer feel constrained in this uniform: Once I realized I was free to stop wearing it, I became free to continue wearing it.
Because of how I dress, I've thought a lot about group identity, about the fads and fashions that flow through even groups like ours (just as they did when most women wear skirts, hems ascend and descend regularly, though here, hardly more than six inches in span over a century or two). There are trend-setters in our community; there are conformists, there are people nudging all the borders, some pushing for "how we always did, but just a mite plainer to be safe" and some for "new and original." Few would state it in words.
Your words here about the way we dress, then, while I enjoyed them, say little that I have not already thought. What fascinates me is that walking about within our uniforms are many different reasons for wearing them, just as in Covid, one was never sure whether the mask-wearer near one was doing so out of fear of disease or love of neighbor, out of fear of government or fear of media or because they liked to accessorize their clothing.
I absolutely love serious cultural takes on fashion and personal style, and I also love how this is applicable to every other way we engage with others charitably and thoughtfully.
Great article and cool to read about your experience with VMI!
I love the Transcendentalists and one thing that I've noticed is that Transcendentalism as understood by many modern Americans tends to be a pretty bastardized version of the original. People like to glom on to the quotes about marching to the beat of your own drummer and the like while ignoring that historical and cultural context Emerson and Thoreau were writing in.
I'm not sure what they'd think of our hyper-individualized culture we live in now. Maybe they'd think it'd be pretty silly?
I do think for individualism to mean anything you've got to be embedded in a tradition or community that gives some structure and then some space to make slight innovations. Your innovations don't mean anything if there's no context for it. Matthew Crawford talked about this in The World Beyond Your head in relation to organ craftsmen. I'll need to re-read it.
Anyways, thanks for giving me more grist for the mental mill! It was a great piece to read.
Thanks, Brett. I really appreciate it!
I definitely agree. One can easily quote Transcendentalists in order to justify a hyper-individual position while too easily ignoring their broader project of developing a fulfilling and virtuous life. I'm confident Emerson and Thoreau would groan if they saw the swaths of clothing; as Thoreau writes about luxuries in Walden: "[most are] positive hinderances to the elevation of mankind."
In my mind, the point that individualism presupposes a community is one the strengths of interpersonalist philosophy. By starting with the other (human and non-human), it puts the horse in front the cart, if you will. Nice connection to Crawford. I've heard you mention him on the AoM podcast many times. I need to pick that up!
I’m curious how the emerging emphasis on cultivating and curating a specific, named aesthetic (e.g., dark academia, cottagecore, uglycore) fits into this conversation. In one hand, it seems there’s an emphasis on individuality— you choose the aesthetic that speaks to you, and such aesthetics are fluid over time— and yet the social media feeds that collectively curate these aesthetics can be at times rather strictly policed (e.g., posters posting outfits and letting the world comment on if they are “dark academia enough”). Additionally— and I’m still trying to understand this trend as a millennial outsider to a Gen-Z world— it seems like an aesthetic is not just about clothing but is all-encompassing, including personality traits, entertainment consumption, sexuality, and emotional postures toward the world. It’s perhaps not that different from the Goth movement or hippie culture, but now there are hundreds of alternative aesthetics defined and shared digitally. You may not know another person in your physical community who adopts this aesthetic but there are plenty on the internet, so you’re both individual and conformist, perhaps. Anyone else have thoughts on this?
This is such a great comment! I think you’re right about how "aesthetics" has been expanded to mean something closer to identity, ethos, or just "vibe." It’s certainly no longer referring to a meaningful discussion of the beautiful. My 2 cents is that these micro-trends are ultimately a version of rebelling against the "masses" (ie. I’m not normie), and I think the movements lead to further and further niche. There is some community (online at least) but still the knee-jerk reaction of distinguishing the self contra others.
"When our actions and thoughts lose the barometer of community, they can careen wildly." - thoughtful and well written.
While I agree that individualism is a defining characteristic, I would argue that it is not as monolithic as is often asserted. Even within this article there is mention of a desire to fit in with clothing trends. People actually do want to be a part of a group and especially within movements there tends to develop a kind of group think where there is little tolerance for divergent opinion. I would add a nuance to the individualist perspective by saying that people desperately want to think of themselves as individual and as unique and therefore as having value, but they still unconsciously operate with a herd mentality much of the time. That is not a statement arguing against the perspective that individualism endemic to our culture, it’s simply a nuancing. We still often act—and even dress—in collectivist ways as long as we can preserve the assessment of ourselves as independent and unconstrained.
Thanks for the comment! I think you're right. There is certainly a "sameness" of modern style that is largely defined by group think / fitting in. I actually wrote about this a few weeks ago on my Substack. I think the particular brand of individualism mentioned in the essay only makes sense with the "sameness" as the basis for its overcorrection. So, these two form a sort of dialectical conflict that we will always have to negotiate.
Yes totally, and you did highlight that dialectical element in your piece. So I’m tracking with your thinking. Thanks for your article btw!
This is such a rich essay, so much to chew on! In all seriousness, do you think Thoreau and Emerson applied Transcendentalist thought to their own wardrobes? To me, they seemed to follow the fashions of the time more or less (which if so, presents an interesting paradox of sorts), but menswear isn’t my strongest area, so I’m genuinely curious.
Thank you! That's a great question. I'm actually not sure about Emerson, but Thoreau is a fan of (one might have guessed) the plain and practical. He was certainly against the "new" and constantly changing trends (made possible by early industry), which would make him critical of fast fashion as well. This is a great little overview of his clothing thoughts as he wrote about them in Walden: https://simplicitycollective.com/thoreau/thoreau-on-clothing
Thanks, Carter! Looking forward to reading this. I haven’t read Walden since high school, which is to say, a very long time. 🙃
Well written! thanks for this thought journey! This is wisdom I can use in all aspects of my life - not just in the clothes I wear.
I loved this piece so much! I also used Buber’s concept of I-Thou in my essay “Fashion: A Principally Feminine Interest” https://open.substack.com/pub/theturtledove/p/fashion-a-principally-feminine-interest?r=2lk15c&utm_medium=ios