Curious about the "rules"

[artificer]

Actually, context does play a large role in people's perceptions of an event. Take, for example, an experiment done by the Washington post (article HERE).

What a fascinating and sad article. Thank you.

[MacLowlife]

KW, you mention the double Windsor knot. Presumably, someone invented it when the previous Windsor knot just wasn't big enough. The reason it was invented was to accentuate and flatter some man's physique. The evolution of nearly all "classic" clothing has to do with accentuating and flattering someone's physique. You can decide for yourself which is better- making a lot of people look pretty good or making a few people look REALLY good. Those two competing ideas bounce back and forth in cycles of nonconformity and conservatism. When people are feeling particularly individualistic, the trend is for people to select clothes that make themselves look good. Those same garments are less likely to make the great mass of people look good and when the mood switches towards group-oriented thinking, you see a predominant look that hides more flaws and flatters the less-than-perfect. There is a truism that every man looks good in a classic tuxedo. (Of course, what exactly a classic tuxedo is can be debated for weeks.) Not every man looks as good in, say, jeans and a tee shirt.

The evolutionary process of western clothing is not perfect- fashion and marketing intrude regularly, as do such out-of-orbit influences as the Baby Boom, where a particular segment of the population wrested control of fashion and refused to relinquish it at the end of "their turn" approximately 25 years later. Another example would be the prominence of a person whose wealth or influence is so great that their physical characteristics are imitated, despite conventional tastes which do not favor them.

Theoretically, people dress to attract mates. Men dress to exhibit their physical primacy and their wealth. Those who have more wealth may be able to display it in some less obvious way, just as those with more physical perfection may be able to be more casual about showing it off. Somewhere along the way, displaying wealth has come to include being able to have new clothes and the need to distinguish new clothes from old ones begat fashion.

SO, if you look like Brad Pitt or the young Sean Connery, you may be able to bend the rules. If you are Bill Gates you can do the same thing. Of course, there are places that looking really good or being really rich will not get you anywhere, as cited above. In those places, the rules are what you need.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Why do these rules, guidelines, whatever you would call them exist?

The rules exist to allow a smooth social transition from one set of life's daily events to another. The greatest social benefit of the rules is that they put the "first timer" at ease by placing him/her on the same visual level as everyone else at the event, thus knocking down at least one social barrier that might prevent one from feeling comfortable at that event.

Is a person sporting a nice well turned out casual set completely out of sorts is he wears a dirk? Ifso why?

Yes, he's "out of sorts", and for exactly the same reason he'd be "out of sorts" if he turned up at a casual luncheon wearing a blue blazer, gray flannel trousers and six-inch Buck hunting knife. Belt knives (and that includes the dirk) are only worn on specific occasions and when engaged in specific activities, kilted or otherwise.

Or is a person under dressed if they attend a white tie affair and neglect a fly plaid or his/her miniatures? Again ifso why?

Far more comments would be passed if one showed up at a white tie event wearing a fly plaid... when plaids are called for (attendance at Court, for example) full plaids are are worn by gentlemen, not fly plaids. The wearing of miniatures medals is, as far as civilians are concerned, optional. So, no, they wouldn't be "under dressed" for the reasons just given.

It appears to me so far that many ideas on what should be worn and when are a matter of past precedent and insomuch are maintained by the simplest of justifications, it's just the way it's always been done.

That's right. And the reason that it's done is that the rules go a long way toward eliminating the possibility of making someone feel uncomfortable-- or unwanted-- at a social event. In other words, the rules are about encouraging social inclusion.

I wonder if it isn't time for an onverhaul on convention?

Why? The conventions of dress work just fine for the vast majority of people. Last Saturday I was at a Tartan Ball in Washington DC. This was a "black tie" event attended by about 250/300 people. All the gentlemen were in black tie-- four or five were in dinner jackets, and one gentleman was in his military uniform-- but no one looked out of place, or uncomfortable in their surroundings. Except for one, poor unfortunate who had decided to wear a black four in hand tie with his dinner jacket. Trendy, I'm sure, but unfortunately he just looked like a guy in a black suit and, being mistaken for a hotel employee, several people approached him asking for directions to the toilets...

Or perhaps an upgrade of the apparatus so to speak since when you look at some highland fashion it often looks like something pulled from antiquity.

Might I suggest, as a Scot, that if individuals do not like the way our traditional Highland attire appears, that they are free to wear some other mode of dress? Despite my fondness for mariachi music and regular attendance at the Mexican National Rodeo, I would never presume to suggest that charros should "upgrade their apparatus" because it it looks like something "pulled from antiquity"; rather, if attending a fiesta, I would respect it for what it is-- an on going extension of their culture, not mine-- and dress with as much attention to tradition and conventional detail as possible. Either that or I'd wear some other mode of attire appropriate to the event.

[gary meakin]

As they say in The House of Lords..."hear hear"

[ForresterModern]

Well put, Scott. It is often a difficult concept to grasp and convey but you did it well. Too often I think people believe that dress "codes" for events are somewhow meant to separate the haves from the have nots, when in fact they are, as you said, more designed to put everyone on equal social footing, at least for the duration of the event, regardless of percieved overall social standing.

[thescot]

The question[s] has been posed and answered quite well. There is no "point" at which traditions and conventions become such; they evolve and change slowly.

Any further discussion of the topic is akin to beating a dead horse. One doesn't decide to change convention, one only chooses to comply or not. And if choosing not to comply, one may well be asked for direstions to the toilet. Or to check one's hat. Or to bring a glass of water.

I begin to wonder if this wasn't fising expedtion to get everyone worked up to begin with.

[MacLowlife]

I am assuming that Kilted Wolfman really wants to know and, since he alluded to tying a double Windsor knot, some of his questions were designed to give us thought and talking points, not to wax revolutionary. I would like to thank all who contributed to this thread. Lately, this forum has been a little quiet and I am grateful for any discussion. Who else has a great topic?

Thanking in advance, I remain,

m'll

[macwilkin]

Well put, Scott. It is often a difficult concept to grasp and convey but you did it well. Too often I think people believe that dress "codes" for events are somewhow meant to separate the haves from the have nots, when in fact they are, as you said, more designed to put everyone on equal social footing, at least for the duration of the event, regardless of percieved overall social standing.

Not to go too far off-topic, but that is one of the reasons for liturgical and academic garments.

T.

[Paul Henry]

Not to go too far off-topic, but that is one of the reasons for liturgical and academic garments.

T.

Actually I don't think that is the case, Academic gowns are worn to show a qualification, or a position within the college, or one of learning.
Liturgical garments are almost always worn to show the postion or status of the wearer.
Both of these types of garments are worn precisely to show the wearer is different from others, they do show some sort of status within the respective organisations, with I would suggest some suggestion that the wearer should be looked up to and respected.

[kiltedwolfman]

My goal with this thread was never fishing, or an attempt to get people worked up etc. Of course that often seems to happen in cases such as this. Moreover I wanted to get an active discussion aimed at finding out the four W's of the much alluded to rules of formal dress. Those being Why do the rules exist? When did the rules come into being? Who is responsible for the formation of the rules? And Where these rules MUST be observed. Some of these questions have been answered very well, some others not so much but the comments and insights have proven most enjoyable. I personally feel there should never be a time when people should be hesitant to ask questions like this, as long as it's done so with respect.