Michel de Montaigne (1575), as one of the earliest writers to reflect on dress,
focuses on the very question of why humans wear clothing. In his essay, his
use of the term clothing seems to be consistent with our use of the term
dress. He attempts to explain why humans wear clothing, and why we have
adopted these “borrowed means” (p. 224). Montaigne stated that “the naked
state” (p. 225) is the natural condition and undressed humans, like all living
things, did not need artificial protection against the effects of the physical
environment. However, humans lost this protection when they started wearing
clothes. In his essay, he asks whether nakedness is the original custom of
human beings. Montaigne questions whether humans truly dress the body
as a form of protection. His answer proposes custom as the main explanation
for dressing the body. Montaigne’s essay, presented in its entirety, reflects his
interest in uncovering universal explanations and determining whether these
explanations derive from natural or man-made laws. He took what can be
labeled a Darwinist approach even though he wrote prior to the time of
Darwin’s theory of evolution. In questioning whether protection for environmental reasons was the original motive for dressing the body, his work is an
early attempt at an explanation within a cultural perspective.
Sylvia Hortense Bliss (1916), in her attempt to construct a philosophy of
clothing, also addresses the question of why humans wear clothes. Her answer
spans two disciplinary perspectives – anthropology and psychoanalysis. She
discusses the origins and functions of clothing from her contemporary
standpoint four centuries after Montaigne. Although Bliss uses the terms clothing, costume, apparel, and dress interchangeably, she defines dress consistently
with our preferred definition.
Bliss (1916) introduces the idea of humans as incomplete and unfinished beings compared to the rest of nature. She suggests that dress embodies and reflects unconscious or subconscious ideals and ideas. Rather than dress originating as custom, as both Montaigne (1575) and Crawley (1912) suggest, Bliss argues that the history of dress is a process of humans striving for the perfect “human costume” (p. 226). She proposes that this will be “fitting, natural, and characteristic as the exterior of fur and feathers for animal and bird” (p. 225). Unlike Darwin (1872), who interpreted a change in clothing as an evolutionary process in response to changing needs and functions, Bliss suggests that a change in clothing signifies a change in collective mental outlook. Her notion echoes the ideas of Carl Jung’s collective unconscious1 and Henri Bergson’s creative evolution.2 Alfred E. Crawley’s (1912) work was first published as an essay in an encyclopedia and later reprinted in a book, Dress, Drinks and Drums. In our excerpt he is also concerned with the origins of and motives for dressing the body. Crawley appears to use both the terms dress and clothing interchangeably, and in his analysis refers to a full definition of dress consistent with ours when he says “if dress be taken to include anything worn on the person, other than armor . . .” (p. 22). Our excerpt directly focuses on origins and motives, summarizing the existing hypotheses. He categorizes what he sees as the prevalent hypotheses into three distinct groups: the decorative element, the idea of concealment as related to modesty and sexual attraction, and the need for protection. Crawley (1912) believes that since we have no direct evidence about the origins of dress, the reasons for origins remain as only speculations. He sees the main question as the process of invention, not the invention of dress. Our excerpt also presents his ideas that dress is a means for extending the body’s capabilities and for allowing social display. In comparing clothing to a house in affording the same kind of environmental protection, he states that dress is “an extension of the passive area of a person” (p. 4), a “second skin” (p. 4) that allows people to not only to adapt their environment but to have mastery over it. Crawley uses an evolutionary model in his discussion. Dress comes from people adapting to their environment; he believes dress should be treated in the same way as weapons, machines, and tools. He expands 1. Psychiatrist Carl Jung (1965) introduced the concept of collective unconscious, which originates in the inherited structure of the brain, representing a form of the unconscious mind common to humankind as a whole. It includes memories, impressions, and impulses shared by all. 2. Creative evolution is a theory developed by French philosopher Henri Bergson (1911) to bring the elements of intuition, human intelligence, and unpredictability into the mechanistic theory of evolution. It would apply to the use of creativity in material culture settings the biological view of evolution and uses the religious and social significance of dress as a guide to include the psychological evolution of dress. Crawley (1912) builds on the work of Lotze (1887), Hall (1898), and Spencer (1896), and provides an early anthropological approach to the study of dress. He sees dress as both an expression and extension of personality, and in this sense, then, explains how dress extends the capabilities of the body. Dress marks various biological and social grades in life, such as age, gender, and status. Dress, as a social form, is a social habit and becomes a direct affirmation of the personality and the state, expressing family, social movement and changing social roles, and government. He also extends the concept of dress as protection to include the psychic or psychological protection of dress used as an amulet, as protection from evil, the evil eye, and evil spirits. Crawley’s work is an important development in the study of dress as a form of communication, as social display, and as social currency. Alfred R. Radcliffe-Brown (1922) limits discussion of the origins and motives of dressing the body to a narrow view of dress as personal ornament. In this excerpt, drawn from a chapter in his book, he questions the meaning and social function of personal ornament. Radcliffe-Brown does not use the term dress or clothing in this discussion but discusses modifications made to the body along with supplements such as necklaces. His focus is dress. His hypothesis is that personal ornament is “a means by which the society acts upon, modifies, and regulates the sense of self in the individual” (p. 315). He provides two motives for the use of personal ornament – the desire for protection and the desire for display. “All ornament marks the relation of the individual to the society, and to forces/power in society to which he owes his well-being and happiness (p. 319).” He uses numerous observations and examples from his fieldwork as an anthropologist to talk about dress displaying dependence on society. When dressing the body, a person uses dress to mark and even highlight a position or place in society, making the person visible either temporarily or permanently. In addition to the concept of dress marking and displaying social value, Radcliffe-Brown, like Crawley (1912), believes dress offers protection from the meta-physical as well as the physical environment.
Ruth Benedict (1931), an anthropologist writing a definition of dress for the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, offers the view that we can know why people clothed themselves in the past by examining the present. She refers to this process of examining the present as conducting a comparative study of the “divergent behavior of now existing peoples” (p. 235). She outlines contemporary theories of origins and motives for dressing the body, such as originating from ideas of magic and protection, as protection against the rigors of climate, or as a means of sexual attraction.
Dressing the Body
Bliss (1916) introduces the idea of humans as incomplete and unfinished beings compared to the rest of nature. She suggests that dress embodies and reflects unconscious or subconscious ideals and ideas. Rather than dress originating as custom, as both Montaigne (1575) and Crawley (1912) suggest, Bliss argues that the history of dress is a process of humans striving for the perfect “human costume” (p. 226). She proposes that this will be “fitting, natural, and characteristic as the exterior of fur and feathers for animal and bird” (p. 225). Unlike Darwin (1872), who interpreted a change in clothing as an evolutionary process in response to changing needs and functions, Bliss suggests that a change in clothing signifies a change in collective mental outlook. Her notion echoes the ideas of Carl Jung’s collective unconscious1 and Henri Bergson’s creative evolution.2 Alfred E. Crawley’s (1912) work was first published as an essay in an encyclopedia and later reprinted in a book, Dress, Drinks and Drums. In our excerpt he is also concerned with the origins of and motives for dressing the body. Crawley appears to use both the terms dress and clothing interchangeably, and in his analysis refers to a full definition of dress consistent with ours when he says “if dress be taken to include anything worn on the person, other than armor . . .” (p. 22). Our excerpt directly focuses on origins and motives, summarizing the existing hypotheses. He categorizes what he sees as the prevalent hypotheses into three distinct groups: the decorative element, the idea of concealment as related to modesty and sexual attraction, and the need for protection. Crawley (1912) believes that since we have no direct evidence about the origins of dress, the reasons for origins remain as only speculations. He sees the main question as the process of invention, not the invention of dress. Our excerpt also presents his ideas that dress is a means for extending the body’s capabilities and for allowing social display. In comparing clothing to a house in affording the same kind of environmental protection, he states that dress is “an extension of the passive area of a person” (p. 4), a “second skin” (p. 4) that allows people to not only to adapt their environment but to have mastery over it. Crawley uses an evolutionary model in his discussion. Dress comes from people adapting to their environment; he believes dress should be treated in the same way as weapons, machines, and tools. He expands 1. Psychiatrist Carl Jung (1965) introduced the concept of collective unconscious, which originates in the inherited structure of the brain, representing a form of the unconscious mind common to humankind as a whole. It includes memories, impressions, and impulses shared by all. 2. Creative evolution is a theory developed by French philosopher Henri Bergson (1911) to bring the elements of intuition, human intelligence, and unpredictability into the mechanistic theory of evolution. It would apply to the use of creativity in material culture settings the biological view of evolution and uses the religious and social significance of dress as a guide to include the psychological evolution of dress. Crawley (1912) builds on the work of Lotze (1887), Hall (1898), and Spencer (1896), and provides an early anthropological approach to the study of dress. He sees dress as both an expression and extension of personality, and in this sense, then, explains how dress extends the capabilities of the body. Dress marks various biological and social grades in life, such as age, gender, and status. Dress, as a social form, is a social habit and becomes a direct affirmation of the personality and the state, expressing family, social movement and changing social roles, and government. He also extends the concept of dress as protection to include the psychic or psychological protection of dress used as an amulet, as protection from evil, the evil eye, and evil spirits. Crawley’s work is an important development in the study of dress as a form of communication, as social display, and as social currency. Alfred R. Radcliffe-Brown (1922) limits discussion of the origins and motives of dressing the body to a narrow view of dress as personal ornament. In this excerpt, drawn from a chapter in his book, he questions the meaning and social function of personal ornament. Radcliffe-Brown does not use the term dress or clothing in this discussion but discusses modifications made to the body along with supplements such as necklaces. His focus is dress. His hypothesis is that personal ornament is “a means by which the society acts upon, modifies, and regulates the sense of self in the individual” (p. 315). He provides two motives for the use of personal ornament – the desire for protection and the desire for display. “All ornament marks the relation of the individual to the society, and to forces/power in society to which he owes his well-being and happiness (p. 319).” He uses numerous observations and examples from his fieldwork as an anthropologist to talk about dress displaying dependence on society. When dressing the body, a person uses dress to mark and even highlight a position or place in society, making the person visible either temporarily or permanently. In addition to the concept of dress marking and displaying social value, Radcliffe-Brown, like Crawley (1912), believes dress offers protection from the meta-physical as well as the physical environment.
Ruth Benedict (1931), an anthropologist writing a definition of dress for the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, offers the view that we can know why people clothed themselves in the past by examining the present. She refers to this process of examining the present as conducting a comparative study of the “divergent behavior of now existing peoples” (p. 235). She outlines contemporary theories of origins and motives for dressing the body, such as originating from ideas of magic and protection, as protection against the rigors of climate, or as a means of sexual attraction.
Comments
Post a Comment