How has American Male Power Been Shaped by Sartorial means?
When we think of male power today, we often think of a solitary, older, white, and nondisabled man, wearing a suit. A plain, black unadorned garment. It is inconspicuous and seems to tell the observer nothing about the wearer. Why is our image of power constructed like this? It certainly hasn’t always been this way, and there are very specific factors that lead to it being so.
During many points in history, both men’s and women’s clothing was based upon how the amount of fabric one could afford. The more fabric a garment was constructed of and the more luxuriously woven it was, the better. This was the case regardless of gender. In the Early Middle Ages, Northwestern European men and women both wore tunics with similar cuts: the main difference being that men occasionally wore baggy trousers underneath (Fig. 1). If one was wealthy, the adornment on these garments would be extremely similar between genders (fig 2).
In the medieval Islamic world, both men and women wore baggy trousers with their tunic (Snappydragon 11:39–15:42). In Northwestern Europe, the primary restriction in sartorial selection was wealth. This was also true in the Islamic world. Religion was another restrictive factor. as there were certain garments, like ornate silk sashes, which could only be worn if an individual, either male or female, was Muslim (Snappydragon 11:39–15:42).
My point in making these statements is that male power was previously defined by how big and ornate your long flowing tunic (dress) was, or how bouffant and shiny your silk salwar (bloomers) were, and not on how “unfeminine” you dressed.
Things began to change and fluctuate in the renaissance: men begin to wear doublets and hose (Fig 3) and women’s dresses became more form fitting (Fig 4). The point was to still Look “big” by using copious amounts of fabric. In Tudor England, men began to resemble squares, and women resembled two inverted triangles (Figures 5&6). Yet these styles of male and female clothing borrowed much from each other. In the Elizabethan era, both men and women wore laces and frilly ruffs around their necks and donned puff sleeves (Fig 7).
Where we begin to see drastic changes in European men’s and women’s clothing is in the “Age of Reason” or the Enlightenment era which took place during the 17th and 18th centuries. This philosophy encouraged practicality and rationality in all areas of life, including dress (Goldhill 2018). In this era, the most influential philosophers wore quite drab clothing (fig 8, 9, 10).
This look as an ideal of power was not unanimous at the time. French noble men wore ornate floral embroidered coats (Fig 11) and high heels (Goldhill 2018). But in places where Enlightenment philosophy had an iron grip on government, such as the United States (Smith 2011), men at the top of this new country’s power structure had to dress as “rationally” as possible. Because of the Enlightenment belief that women were incapable of reason, they also had to dress as unfeminine as possible (Goldhill 2018). This resulted in a quite plain, albeit well-tailored suit (fig. 12), one that firmly instated the role of power and rationality in the minds of Americans for generations.
The American suit has not made any particularly significant aesthetic changes since around 1850. Neither has it decreased as a symbol of wealth and “rationality”. Native American children were forced to wear suits in boarding schools, to “take the savage out of them” (Figure 13). As women made their way into the workplace, dresses were not welcome. Instead of the image of power broadening to accept femininity as rational and powerful, women had to adjust to the suited male image of power by wearing “power suits” (Fig 14). When African American and immigrant communities attempted to make the suit their own by creating the “zoot suit” (Fig. 15), authorities Called it a wasteful (and therefore irrational) use of fabric during wartime rationing (Mtshali 2018). The Zoot suit riots occurred on May 31st. 1943, in which US military police attacked a group of Mexican children solely on the basis of their wearing of an “Irrational” garment. A certain police chief said that this irrationality was due to the “Indian” part of the Mexican (Zoot Suit Discovery Guide n.d). Immigrants to the United States made sure to get their images taken in their best western suits and dresses possibly to “prove” to a racist and xenophobic society that they were “Just like them” (Fig 16,17).
The “proper” American suit was seen as a garment meant to secure the positions of state power in the United States as wealthy, white, nondisabled, and male. The “norming” of this type of body, and the garment it wears, as a prerequisite for power is indicative of the switch from sovereign power to biopolitical power as defined by Michel Foucault in Chloe Taylors essay.
In the past, kings would wear all their wealth on their bodies and impose power by simply ending a life or not. This open, flashy, approach power shown by the king is shown in dress and power over life is characteristic of sovereign power as defined by Foucault (Taylor 2014). In contrast, wealth today lies in how much money one has and how rationally they present themselves. Spending money on suits that are expensive, even if by their simplicity the “average” person could not tell. Power lies in the ability to discredit those who are not as “rational” as, denying them jobs (I; E Less female/BIPOC inclusivity in positions of power), money (shown in the Gender/Race Pay gap), food (Telling the poor to “Pull themselves up by the bootstraps” if they are truly rational and therefore, human). As a result of denying these things to classes of people deemed less rational and inferior, the People at the top deny life. The hidden, convoluted nature of wealth and power today, as well as how the wealthy and powerful present themselves is characteristic of Foucault’s notion of biopower (Taylor 2014).
In the modern age wealth and power hides itself in a mimicry of commonality and simplicity. Today, many people can buy a suit, but those who are at the top will know the difference between their $4,000 Armani and your $60 Brooks Brother’s. You might not be able to tell the other way around, but they will automatically see you as lesser. This lessening is aggravated by race, disability status, and whether your suit happens to have a skirt on the bottom. Those who cannot afford a suit or those who dress eclectically and not according to trends might not even catch their eye.
In the 1950s, the minimalist aesthetic was introduced in the United States. This aesthetic, in both architecture and dress, encouraged functionality over adornment (Danville, n.d). This aesthetic has surged to popularity in recent years. Some have even called 2020 the year of minimalism (Realism in Wonder 2020). It should be noted that there is a difference between lifestyle minimalism and aesthetic minimalism. While lifestyle minimalism aims to cut out unnecessary consumption (Danville n.d), aesthetic minimalism aims to make everything functional and utilitarian, with no unnecessary adornment.
Aesthetic minimalism has roots in rationality-based fascism and elitism which supported the city dwelling, Northwestern European male as the ultimate Ideal. Adolf Loos, an Austrian founder of architectural European Minimalism, stated that culture can only exist when personal adornment is removed from the peasant. He thought that wanting to adorn oneself with color and amulets was immoral and degenerate. He believed that looking at a blank white slate would “clean” one’s mind. He also viewed his minimalist and fascist aesthetic as inherently masculine (Babajide 2021).
This Aesthetic ideology goes hand in hand with the enlightenment philosophy of rational dress, which in turn, makes it no surprise that it has been adopted by the American elite. Minimalist dress masks itself as even more gender equitable than the suit. However, unisex minimalist clothing still more often incorporates masculine elements than feminine, such as trousers and boxy forms (Fig 18). Its simplicity in color and adornment could be seen as equalizing, but perhaps only as equalizing as those who were stripped of their individual culture and made equal in US and Canadian Indigenous boarding Schools or European concentration camps
In the United States, dress Has helped white, male supremacy be seen as the archetype for power. Many do not realize that these ideals have only been so recently constructed in the early modern period, and how varied male dress was in the eras preceding. These “rational” ideals of dress, beginning with the suit and continuing with Minimalism, continuously boxes men into an extremely limited realm when it comes to expressing themselves. It also tells women they need to be masculine to succeed, and it gives non-binary individuals a limited framework when choosing Unisex Clothing.
References:
Babajide, R. (2021) How Minimalism is Rooted in Fascism. UX Collective. Retrieved from: How Minimalism is rooted in Fascism | by Ronke Babajide | Jul, 2021 | UX Collective | UX Collective (uxdesign.cc)
Goldhill, O. (2018) Why do women wear high heels? Blame enlightenment philosophy. Quartz. Retrieved from: Why do women wear high heels? Blame enlightenment philosophy — Quartz (qz.com)
Smith, N. (2011) The Influence of the Enlightenment on the Formation of the United States. Article Myriad. Retrieved from: The Influence of the Enlightenment on The Formation of the United States (articlemyriad.com)
Snappydragon (2021) Getting dressed in the middle ages, while Jewish. (11:39- 15:42). Retrieved from: Getting dressed in the middle ages, while Jewish : 11th century medieval Jews, England vs Spain — YouTube
Mtshali, K. (2018) This outfit defined an era, created a riot, and was banned by the government. Timeline. Retrieved from: This outfit defined an era, created a riot, and was banned by the government | by Khanya Mtshali | Timeline
Zoot Suit Discovery Guide (n.d) Zoot suit riots. Retrieved From: Zoot Suit Riots :: Zoot Suit Discovery Guide (pomona.edu)
Danielle, M. (n.d) The History of Minimalism And What Minimalism Means as a Lifestyle. Miadanielle.com Retrieved from: The History of Minimalism And What Minimalism Means as a Lifestyle (miadanielle.com)
Realism In Wonder (2020) Why 2020 Is the Year of Minimalism. Retrieved from: Why 2020 Is The Year Of Minimalism — Realism In Wonder