George Van Ness Dearborn (1918) attempts to contribute to what he refers
to as the new science of clothing. Echoing the approach of Montaigne (1575),
Dearborn mounts an argument with a scientific approach about discovering
the laws underlying clothing behavior. He includes two parts to his monograph – a physiological psychology of clothing and what he views as the
beginnings of an applied psychology of clothing. His use of the term clothing
is limited to styles of garments and is not inclusive. Our excerpt comes from
the section on the physiological psychology of clothing. Dearborn maintains
that “one’s clothes are one of the important things that intervenes between
the individual personality and his environment and you understand that life
itself in a sense is a reaction of an individual to his environment”
Dearborn (1918) emphasizes that humans, in order to be “both more efficient and happy,” need to be educated in how to dress “properly” (p. 1). The term, according to Dearborn, properly relates to how dress impacts the functions of the physical body, such as breathing, sweating, heart rate, movement of limbs and even digestive action, as well as to the psychological sense of comfort and well-being of the whole person. An important aspect of his applied psychology of clothing is his conclusion that “there can be no ‘laws’ social and much less official for scientifically clothing the population” (p. 69). In other words, science must apply itself to suggesting how individuals should dress rather than how an entire society should dress. German philosopher Rudolf Hermann Lotze (1887), in his seminal essay, credits clothing as giving human beings sensations and feelings of existence. Dress, in contact with the surface of the physical body, can increase or facilitate feelings of the continuation of the person. In his own words, “the consciousness of our personal existence is prolonged into the extremities and surfaces of this foreign body and the consequence is feeling now an expansion of our proper self” (p. 592). In fact, dress or clothing, terms which Lotze uses synonymously and which refer only to garments, are tools to create self-consciousness, just as a stick held in the hand or the hands themselves are tools that extend the body. Our excerpt is part of his major work on the theory of knowledge and reality, in which he focused on humans and their relation to the world. This work, which began the study of dress and awareness of self, influenced several of his contemporaries including Hall (1898) and Spencer (1896), and subsequent scholars including Crawley (1912) and Bliss (1916), among many others. G. Stanley Hall (1898) builds upon what he calls the concept of “Lotzean self-feeling” (p. 366), and looks at children to determine the development of the sense of self. He bases his presentation on data utilizing a questionnaire distributed to teachers and focused on their observations of children. He believes that mental growth progresses in evolutionary stages, and his presentation outlines those stages. His main concern in this excerpt is psychological. His focus is on how humans develop physical self-consciousness. Using the terms dress and clothing interchangeably, Hall contends that dress and adornment are used to attract the attention of a child to its body. In other words, clothes consciousness facilitates body consciousness. One of the primary purposes of clothing for Hall is to get children on the correct developmental path. Hall suggests that clothing has a moral impact on children in that a change of dress can change a child’s attitude and behaviors. Thus, how you dress a child is critical to the development of self. Hall offers a critique of Lotze (1887) by saying that Lotze’s view about self-feeling as the purpose of clothing in childhood is too extreme.
As a physician and surgeon, William Henry Flower (1881) calls for dress reform but not as a women’s issue. His book presents a history of what he calls deformities to the body in the name of fashion in both Western and nonWestern settings. Flower contends that any body modification as result of dress, such as wearing tight corsets or fashionable shoes, deforms the natural body and as a result is an immoral act. He uses the term dress to include such body modifications as tattooing and corseting and is consistent with our use of the term. According to Flower, nature should be used as the standard of beauty, and dress reform, not fashion, is the way to preserve a civilized society. Ada Ballin (1885) also focuses her concern on dress as it relates to health. She takes a human ecological approach in her book, taking into account humans and their near environment. She points out how some of the physical aspects or needs of the body, such as maintaining body temperature or ventilation, may be enhanced or inhibited by different body supplements. She recommends prescriptions for healthy dress, and proposes a “rational dress system” (p. 171) to maximize health and beauty. According to Ballin, this system must be fashionable as well as healthy or else it will not be successful. It is her objective to point out how clothing can be made healthy without being unfashionable. She contends that “sanitarians may preach forever without making a single convert, since women – especially women in Society – dread, and have reason to dread, ridicule, and they would endure tortures rather than appear unfashionable” (p. v). She uses the term dress as a synonym for clothing without a broader definition. Ballin, an early contributor to what she refers to as the science of dress, proposes practical applications as well as presenting the theories behind them. One well-known solution to the calls for women’s dress reform was the Bloomer costume, which was based on a pair of Turkish harem pants and a long, loose tunic. A common misconception about suffragist Amelia Bloomer’s (1895) relationship to dress reform and the ensemble associated with her name is that she designed it and promoted it as part of the dress reform movement. However, as she herself explains in the excerpt taken from the biography written by her husband, Bloomer stopped wearing it eventually because it detracted from the real reform focus of her work, which was women’s rights and suffrage.
Like Flower (1881) and Ballin (1885), Knight Dunlap (1928) also calls for dress reform, albeit forty years after the time-frame of what dress historians designate as the dress-reform movement, but his issue is not physical health. In the section on “the psychological problem of clothing” (p. 64), Dunlap discusses the problems of determining the motives for dressing the body. He concludes that the origins of clothing were in the human need for protection from “injurious and unpleasant agencies” (p. 69) such as insects. Ornaments and fashionable dress do not offer practical protection but instead confer status and communicate identity. While he differentiates clothing from ornament, Dunlap restricts his use of the term clothing to mean garments. Dunlap (1928) contends that modesty evolved only once it became possible to indicate one’s wealth and social status through dress. He also suggests that clothing developed along gender lines based on a practical basis of sexual selection. Men’s clothing became practical to suit their economic needs and strength, and women’s clothing developed along the lines of enhancing beauty. In his view, the clothing of his time period equalized sexual competition. Men and women of all status levels could look alike through their use of dress. This meant that a prostitute could be mistaken for a woman of society, and it is in this characteristic of dress that he finds a moral issue and calls for dress reform. “When we return to the primitive basis of clothing, as a means of protection and nothing more, we will have lost most of our problems of sexual morality . . .” (p. 78). Dunlap takes an unusual stance in wanting to return to the primitive state, rather than propounding the notion of social evolution and the trend to civilization.
Dearborn (1918) emphasizes that humans, in order to be “both more efficient and happy,” need to be educated in how to dress “properly” (p. 1). The term, according to Dearborn, properly relates to how dress impacts the functions of the physical body, such as breathing, sweating, heart rate, movement of limbs and even digestive action, as well as to the psychological sense of comfort and well-being of the whole person. An important aspect of his applied psychology of clothing is his conclusion that “there can be no ‘laws’ social and much less official for scientifically clothing the population” (p. 69). In other words, science must apply itself to suggesting how individuals should dress rather than how an entire society should dress. German philosopher Rudolf Hermann Lotze (1887), in his seminal essay, credits clothing as giving human beings sensations and feelings of existence. Dress, in contact with the surface of the physical body, can increase or facilitate feelings of the continuation of the person. In his own words, “the consciousness of our personal existence is prolonged into the extremities and surfaces of this foreign body and the consequence is feeling now an expansion of our proper self” (p. 592). In fact, dress or clothing, terms which Lotze uses synonymously and which refer only to garments, are tools to create self-consciousness, just as a stick held in the hand or the hands themselves are tools that extend the body. Our excerpt is part of his major work on the theory of knowledge and reality, in which he focused on humans and their relation to the world. This work, which began the study of dress and awareness of self, influenced several of his contemporaries including Hall (1898) and Spencer (1896), and subsequent scholars including Crawley (1912) and Bliss (1916), among many others. G. Stanley Hall (1898) builds upon what he calls the concept of “Lotzean self-feeling” (p. 366), and looks at children to determine the development of the sense of self. He bases his presentation on data utilizing a questionnaire distributed to teachers and focused on their observations of children. He believes that mental growth progresses in evolutionary stages, and his presentation outlines those stages. His main concern in this excerpt is psychological. His focus is on how humans develop physical self-consciousness. Using the terms dress and clothing interchangeably, Hall contends that dress and adornment are used to attract the attention of a child to its body. In other words, clothes consciousness facilitates body consciousness. One of the primary purposes of clothing for Hall is to get children on the correct developmental path. Hall suggests that clothing has a moral impact on children in that a change of dress can change a child’s attitude and behaviors. Thus, how you dress a child is critical to the development of self. Hall offers a critique of Lotze (1887) by saying that Lotze’s view about self-feeling as the purpose of clothing in childhood is too extreme.
Heath Issues and Dress Reform
As a physician and surgeon, William Henry Flower (1881) calls for dress reform but not as a women’s issue. His book presents a history of what he calls deformities to the body in the name of fashion in both Western and nonWestern settings. Flower contends that any body modification as result of dress, such as wearing tight corsets or fashionable shoes, deforms the natural body and as a result is an immoral act. He uses the term dress to include such body modifications as tattooing and corseting and is consistent with our use of the term. According to Flower, nature should be used as the standard of beauty, and dress reform, not fashion, is the way to preserve a civilized society. Ada Ballin (1885) also focuses her concern on dress as it relates to health. She takes a human ecological approach in her book, taking into account humans and their near environment. She points out how some of the physical aspects or needs of the body, such as maintaining body temperature or ventilation, may be enhanced or inhibited by different body supplements. She recommends prescriptions for healthy dress, and proposes a “rational dress system” (p. 171) to maximize health and beauty. According to Ballin, this system must be fashionable as well as healthy or else it will not be successful. It is her objective to point out how clothing can be made healthy without being unfashionable. She contends that “sanitarians may preach forever without making a single convert, since women – especially women in Society – dread, and have reason to dread, ridicule, and they would endure tortures rather than appear unfashionable” (p. v). She uses the term dress as a synonym for clothing without a broader definition. Ballin, an early contributor to what she refers to as the science of dress, proposes practical applications as well as presenting the theories behind them. One well-known solution to the calls for women’s dress reform was the Bloomer costume, which was based on a pair of Turkish harem pants and a long, loose tunic. A common misconception about suffragist Amelia Bloomer’s (1895) relationship to dress reform and the ensemble associated with her name is that she designed it and promoted it as part of the dress reform movement. However, as she herself explains in the excerpt taken from the biography written by her husband, Bloomer stopped wearing it eventually because it detracted from the real reform focus of her work, which was women’s rights and suffrage.
Like Flower (1881) and Ballin (1885), Knight Dunlap (1928) also calls for dress reform, albeit forty years after the time-frame of what dress historians designate as the dress-reform movement, but his issue is not physical health. In the section on “the psychological problem of clothing” (p. 64), Dunlap discusses the problems of determining the motives for dressing the body. He concludes that the origins of clothing were in the human need for protection from “injurious and unpleasant agencies” (p. 69) such as insects. Ornaments and fashionable dress do not offer practical protection but instead confer status and communicate identity. While he differentiates clothing from ornament, Dunlap restricts his use of the term clothing to mean garments. Dunlap (1928) contends that modesty evolved only once it became possible to indicate one’s wealth and social status through dress. He also suggests that clothing developed along gender lines based on a practical basis of sexual selection. Men’s clothing became practical to suit their economic needs and strength, and women’s clothing developed along the lines of enhancing beauty. In his view, the clothing of his time period equalized sexual competition. Men and women of all status levels could look alike through their use of dress. This meant that a prostitute could be mistaken for a woman of society, and it is in this characteristic of dress that he finds a moral issue and calls for dress reform. “When we return to the primitive basis of clothing, as a means of protection and nothing more, we will have lost most of our problems of sexual morality . . .” (p. 78). Dunlap takes an unusual stance in wanting to return to the primitive state, rather than propounding the notion of social evolution and the trend to civilization.
Comments
Post a Comment