6 ms·
> There's also a kind of signaling by people who are rich enough not to care about these things and dress accordingly, which is a way of reminding other people
by ashark 9y ago
> There's also a kind of signaling by people who are rich enough not to care about these things and dress accordingly, which is a way of reminding other people that you have so much money you don't care about what impression you make. This only works when people already know you're wealthy, though.
Fussell notes this in his Class. The group he categorizes as "top out-of-sight" (mostly old money) is genuinely beyond caring about appearances and are where you get a lot of "eccentric" rich-person behavior like wearing really cheap clothes. Upper-class folks, especially younger ones, may very carefully and deliberately dress way down, especially when traveling (for some reason), though they will not, and will not intend to, actually blend in.
Separately but somewhat relatedly, he claims that higher classes will tend to buy unexceptional things where spending more is seen as primarily a status signaling thing, and especially when the thing is in any way technological—so buying a flashy, expensive, new car belongs to the sensibilities of the upper-middle classes and lower (regardless of their income—talking about socialized class, not income) while the comfortably rich might just own a beat-up Chevy, or an old luxury car.
Where you do not see people do it is when there's a risk they might actually be mistaken for belonging to any part of Fussell's "prole" category—so, upper-middle and, especially, middle.
- Nav_Panel 9y agoFussell's book was written prior to "hipsters" as we know them, but many tenets of "hipster fashion" are predicated on some of the same logic as "upper-class folks intentionally dressing down" -- educated, urban, corporate-employed, well-to-do young people dressing "down" in streetwear or workwear like Carhartt (this one really confused my parents). Obviously they will not be construed as a member of the rural working class, as they live in a city, and the racial dimension also plays a (fairly disgusting, if you think about it) role. Also, although the parts you selected are pretty reasonable and provide insight in this discussion, I would advise taking Fussell's book with some caution: it is an entertaining read but it is not definitive or really all that well-supported beyond his personal observations, and it slices a particular time and culture that seems to be on the wane (as the American middle class disappears, and the nature of the working class changes).
- ashark 9y agoI think it's still fairly useful. It provides an interesting framework for understanding Trump's tastes—or, maybe, the taste he projects in order to market specifically to prole and middle (not upper-middle or higher) people who've moved into higher wealth brackets—for instance. I think it's also useful for understanding which class is being targeted by advertising—the class markers and attitudes it covers, and others that one might infer, are everywhere in advertising. His "Class X" stuff was way off, of course, and is another thing the trappings of which became just another class marker (for hipsters, in fact, and some other fashion/lifestyle movements). Probably that's a recurring cycle with countercultures. Some specifics have shifted, though trends and anxieties have not so much, I think. A lot of the visible wealth now is (as usual) new money—often tech folks—so I think it remains to be seen whether their kids and grandkids will retain "lower" (largely upper-middle) class tastes and behaviors or integrate fully into the upper classes.
- Inconel 9y agoIf you have time would you mind expanding on your point about the racial dimensions of workwear? Aren't most urban "hipsters" white, as are most rural working class people?
- Nav_Panel 9y agoStreetwear is where the racial dimension comes into play, not as much with workwear. I could elaborate on some of the racial dimensions of the "hipster", though, if you'd like.
- anigbrowl 9y agoYeah I was thinking specifically of outdoorsy aristocrats who prefer the stables to the stately home, and have no need to dress up because everyone knows they own half the land around the village. Europeans will probabl be more familiar with this type.