# Does conservatism in dress encourage hostility towards new ideas?



## katon (Dec 25, 2006)

I recently tracked down an interesting book I've been meaning to read on men's fashion. It's called Men Can Take It by Elizabeth Hawes, and was published in 1939. It had a section in it on men who still wore stiff-collared shirts back then:



> I am interested in that small group of men still extant who wear stiff collars with business suits. When we later look into the nature of some of their business, we shall see that at times it is not their fault. But with those who are allowed to choose and still choose a stiff collar, we meet one of our most curious phenomena. They represent to me the most backward men of our civilization. Once when I was pregnant I met one of them and - well, it was this way:
> 
> I was pregnant and so I had to go to an obstetrician and I went once and he seemed a little formal, but pleasant enough. He did take the attitude that if I insisted upon going to work every day, I would probably just have to take the consequences of my madness, but since I had to go to work every day anyway, I ignored that. The second time I went we spoke about driving the car, and he said I had better not do it because I might have an accident. I said I had been driving for fifteen years and never had an accident, but he shook his head anyway. Well, it was then I noticed he was wearing a stiff collar. I realized he probably thought that woman's place was still in the home and there was very little I could do for him, - or he for me.


It reminded me a bit about a joking yet potentially somewhat serious article from The Independent called, "", that came at the same sort of phenomenon from a British perspective.

I'd be interested to know what you fellows think about the subject. Does conservatism in dress encourage hostility towards new ideas?


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

katon said:


> Does conservatism in dress encourage hostility towards new ideas?


I think that it's more likely the other way around; people who are hostile to new ideas tend to be that way with regard to the way they dress. In other words what worked in the past will continue to do just fine in the future.

I remember what it was like back in the 70's when computers were first entering the workplace on a large scale. For most employees this meant training on how to use the things all the way down to basic keyboard training (what we called typing before computers). Some employees readily embraced this new way of doing our jobs while others hated it and resisted at every turn. Thinking back on it now the ones who were the most resistant were the ones who tended to be the most conservative in just about everything, including how they dressed.

In other words, they weren't reluctant to embrace the personal computer on the job because of the way they dressed, they dressed the way they did because it was their basic nature to be resistant to change in anything.

Cruiser


----------



## 12345Michael54321 (Mar 6, 2008)

I wouldn't say that conservatism in dress encourages hostility toward new ideas. Rather, if one is uncomfortable with change in one area - say, in dress - it's entirely possible that one will be uncomfortable with change in other areas - such as in gender roles, computerization, demographic shifts, etc. That is, conservatism in dress may not be the cause of hostility toward new ideas, but could simply be among the more readily visible indications that the individual is conservative generally.

And before anyone chimes in with, "I dress conservatively, but work for social change, scientific advancement, and US adoption of the metric system," I'd explicitly note that I'm talking about possible general tendencies, to which there are undeniably many, many individual exceptions. Okay?
-- 
Michael


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

katon said:


> I'd be interested to know what you fellows think about the subject. Does conservatism in dress encourage hostility towards new ideas?


I don't think there's any connection.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

12345Michael54321 said:


> And before anyone chimes in with, "I dress conservatively, but work for social change, scientific advancement, and US adoption of the metric system," I'd explicitly note that I'm talking about possible general tendencies, to which there are undeniably many, many individual exceptions. Okay?
> --
> Michael


Not me, I'm an uptight old bastard and dress like one, BECAUSE I dress like one!!


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

I don't believe there have been any new ideas since the Sixties destroyed Western civilization.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

But can we all agree that the lady from 1939 who wrote the quoted blurb is a flaming a'hole?


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Peak and Pine said:


> But can we all agree that the lady from 1939 who wrote the quoted blurb is a flaming a'hole?


I don't know; perhaps it was just the "stiff" collar that was bothering her.

Cruiser


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*the shod pregnant woman was an abomination*

If timeless and proven is conservative and resistant to new ideas, count me in. I don't challenge the wisdom of generations past, and sartorially they certainly had it right compared to modern atrocities.

What about the downright reactionary dressers that revert to the styles of a generation or more before their own? This is arguably costume, but I suspect that the rockabilly and steampunk types are mostly not espousing dated social mores.

Conversely, are trendy types more likely to be suckers for any new idea? I think so.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> If timeless and proven is conservative and resistant to new ideas, count me in. I don't challenge the wisdom of generations past, and sartorially they certainly had it right compared to modern atrocities.


The only problem with this is exactly when do you consider that they "had it right?" The way we dress has been in a constant state of change for hundreds of years. At what point during all those centuries of change did they hit on what was "right" and from that point forward change had to stop? Just wondering.

Actually I'm just having a little fun here, but my question is sincere. For example, prior to the late 1800's there was no such thing as a tuxedo. What we call "dinner" wear consisted of a coat with tails. Cutting off the tails and creating a short coat was quite radical in it's day, but now it is accepted as both "classic" and "timeless."

So that takes me back to my question. How exactly do we determine on the timeline of history what should be considered to be the classic and timeless way to dress. After all, there was a time when this was timeless and classic. What happened?










Cruiser


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

I speak in practical terms. The fact that many modern styles are ugly is secondary to the fact that they are stupid - clothing that makes the wearer uncomfortable by impeding motion or proper ventilation. 

Clothing style should evolve based on convenience, technology, comfort.
The removable stiff collar was convenient (saved laundering), high tech at one point, but terribly uncomfortable. It died.
Skinny/stretch jeans are inconvenient, no tech marvel, and not particularly comfortable.
Washington's clothing appears more sensible to me than what a large number of people today are wearing.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Peak and Pine said:


> But can we all agree that the lady from 1939 who wrote the quoted blurb is a flaming a'hole?


LOL. If there is one in our midst who might be best qualified to offer such an assessment, it would be our beloved Peak and Pine!


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Peak and Pine said:


> But can we all agree that the lady from 1939 who wrote the quoted blurb is a flaming a'hole?





eagle2250 said:


> LOL. If there is one in our midst who might be best qualified to offer such an assessment, it would be our beloved Peak and Pine!


A little history here, just so's you'll understand the genesis of the above retort.

Eagle and I both got married back in the 70's. To each other. I got fed up with him never picking up after himself and it came to a ferocious end resulting in remarks like the one above.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Pictures!! We must have pictures!!

(I wouldn't have thought you were Eagle's type - - -)


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

katon said:


> ... Does conservatism in dress encourage hostility towards new ideas?


No. In fact, it is often the perfect camouflage for the most radical of radicals. Just have a peek in the faculty lounge of Harvard or Yale if you doubt this.

Then again, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., a well-noted conservative dresser, was notably hostile towards any idea he'd not come up with first, so perhaps there is some merit to the question.


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Terence Blacker's article in The Independent is alarmist scare-mongering. I too have been 'experimenting with tweed' for many years - perhaps I am just fortunate not to have experienced (yet) the full panoply of alarming side-effects reported in the article. But it's left me feeling shaken - why didn't _my_ father take me to Huntsman's when I was 18?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Does conservatism in dress encourage hostility towards new ideas? 

Absolutely not.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

No, not necessarily, however in my opinion conservatism in it's own right encourages hostility towards new ideas.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Not in my case.

Gurdon


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

VictorRomeo said:


> ...in my opinion conservatism in it's own right encourages hostility towards new ideas.


A case of one man's opinion being another man's prejudice...


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Centaur said:


> A case of one man's opinion being another man's prejudice...


I think you just made my point for me there, old chap....


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Something we agree on....?


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

I have no idea, but I *only *wear two-button, high, and extra stiff white collars :devil:, and I'm very open to any ideas, new or old.


----------



## turban1 (May 29, 2008)

*conversely...*

...does being liberal and fashionable in your dress make you accept without question every ill-thought, self-serving, half-witted notion to come down the pike?

i don't know.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Y'know, conservatives are just as likely to accept without question ill-thought, self-serving, half-witted notions...


----------



## Top Guns (Apr 29, 2010)

It seems that some may be confused (or perhaps intentionally fanning the flames) about the difference between conservative and liberal political views and conservative dress. Believe me, they are two very different things. And, I do not believe one can equate conservative dress to conserative political views. Why, look at how the Democrats in Congress dress--looks a might conservative to me.

If one is going to hold a job at an organization that has a conservative dress code, then one will dress conservatively. However, that does not automatically change the way one's brain works or the openness one has to new ideas, or accepring/introducing change. Likewise, even if one is working at a more liberal establishment (in regards to dress, such as Google which was mentioned earlier), that does not preclude one from being conservative in thought and procedure, and being resistant to change.


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Yes, political opinion creeps in to even the most innocuous discussions on sleeve length.
Earlier someone said that political conservatism equates to hostility to new ideas. Not borne out here - politicians of _all_ parties keep having new ideas, that's the trouble ...


----------



## turban1 (May 29, 2008)

*well spotted, sir!*



VictorRomeo said:


> Y'know, conservatives are just as likely to accept without question ill-thought, self-serving, half-witted notions...


that's right. there are reflexive, unthinking people among every shade of political opinion. that was my implication. some radicals dress trad and perhaps vice versa if to a lesser degree. i thought the topic was a bit silly.


----------

