Free EBook Samples: Free ebook sample of "FreeDress For Success - A Businessman's Guite To Sartorial Disarmament" by Kent Welton

- FreeDress For Success -

* * *

A Businessman’s Guide to

Sartorial Disarmament

* * *

Max Comfort

A PANDIT PRESS CLASSIC

All Rights Reserved

Copyright 2006

Pandit Press

ISBN# 0-944361-30-7

Manufactured in The United States Of America

First Pandit Press Edition, August 2006

This book may not be reproduced in whole, or in part, by mimeo- graph, xerox, digital copy, ebook, transmitted over the internet, or distributed by any other means without permission. All rights reserved under U.S., International, Pan-American, and WTO Copy- right Conventions. For information about reprint and distribution rights please direct all inquiries to:

Pandit Press

24843 Del Prado, Suite 405

Dana Point, Ca. 92629

Email: panditpress@cox.net

“Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes”

Henry David Thoreau

“Strange Behavior, weird costumes, I must be at work again”

Bumper Sticker

“Where there is no style, there is style”

Old Chinese Proverb

“Why did kamikaze pilots wear helmets?”

Dave Edison

“I sometimes run over my clothes with my car to make them look dirtier, because that’s how I wear’em” Corey Parks, Nashville Pussy

“Their generation X mindset is completely casual in every single way.”

Alison Brod

“The nationwide survey of white-collar workers found that

81 percent agree that allowing casual dress improves morale”

Reuters

“To me, business isn’t about wearing suits or pleasing stockholders. Its about being true to yourself.”

Richard Branson, CEO

- TABLE OF CONTENTS -

Chapter	1	- Dress & Diversity..........................................	1
Chapter	2	- “Dress For Success”......................................	52
Chapter	3	- A New Ethic of Dress...................................	70
Chapter	4	- When In Rome...Be Yourself........................	80
Chapter	5	- Obeying Ourselves........................................	90
Chapter	6	- The Stress of Dress........................................	102
Chapter	7	- Dress Rights...................................................	124
Chapter	8	- Primitive Management...................................	145
Chapter	9	- Management & Freedom................................	173

Chapter 10 - Sales & Success.............................................. 184

Chapter 11 - Democratic Etiquette...................................... 197

Chapter 12 - Fear Of Informality......................................... 207

Chapter 13 - Women & Bondage......................................... 215

Chapter 14 - The Future of Fashion..................................... 220

NOTES...................................................................................... 226

1

CHAPTER I

- DRESS & DIVERSITY -

“Nothing conceivable is so petty, so insipid, and so crowded with paltry interests, in one word, so anti-poetic, as the life of a man in the United States. As men become more alike, the rules for advancement become more inflexible, advancement itself slower. And if the influ- ence of individuals is weak and hardly perceptible amongst such a people, the power exercised by the mass upon the mind of each indi- vidual is extremely great. As men grow more alike, each man feels himself weaker in regard to all the rest. Not only does he mistrust his strength, but he even doubts of his right... Variety is disappearing from the human race; the same ways of acting, thinking, and feeling are to be met with all over the world... And revolutions are not what I most fear for coming generations. I cannot but fear that men will arrive at a state as to regard every new theory as a peril, every inno- vation as an irksome toil, every social improvement as a stepping stone to revolution, and so refuse to move altogether for fear of being moved too far. I fear [modern society] will ultimately be too invari- ably fixed in the same institutions, the same prejudices, the same manners, so mankind will be stopped and circumscribed, without begetting fresh ideas; and, that humanity will cease to advance.”¹

Alexis De Tocqueville

One of the more peculiar aspects of modern American life - and now a global, westernized, commercial arena - is the dreary uniformity and continuing lack of diversity in the dress of businessmen and women. A visitor from another world eyeing this inexplicable sameness might well conclude that only a powerful dictator could be responsible for such ubiquitous conformity.

Despite the growing “casual” revolution today, many still do not appear to exhibit much freedom and control over their workplace attire. With so many in the professional business and political worlds still dressing alike the inescapable conclusion is that we are not truly free and that some outside force must be responsible for our prisoner-like behav- ior in the “free market.”

Nearly two centuries ago, Alexis De Tocqueville, an alien of sorts, noted

² FreeDress For Success

with the keen eye of an outsider the many eccentricities within the Amer- ican character. He was among the first to note the nature of our strange behavior and tendency of American “democratic” mores, manners, and fashions to become stifling and oppressive. For the most part these same sartorial inclinations remain today. Exhibit A remains the old and tired use of the sack suit and tie in the workplace.

Many commentators thru the ages have lamented the tyrannical aspects of fashion - calling it tyrant, despot, and duplicitous God. Still the deeper nature of this social inclination, corporate commandment, and other-directed behavior remains a mystery and is often unexplored.

Despite the obvious utilitarian, seductive, and hierarchical uses of clothing we are hard-pressed to explain, and often unwilling to examine, the reasons for our behavior. Excuses we have.

Curiously, while freedom and individuality are explicit American ideals, any real sartorial expression of these same precepts in the work- place remains rare today. We need to inquire within our “free” society exactly what defect of mankind, and what order of power or organiza- tional psychology, explains such dreary behavior?

Whatever the answer, to begin this inquiry into our sartorial shack- les and fears we must first raise a few questions - i.e., why does there remain so little effective freedom of fashion and style in a “democratic” society? Why do all businessmen and politicians dress alike? Can one style of dress possibly define a free society or free market? Why are so many businessmen and politicians afraid to jettison their stiff suit-and- tie routine? Why do we persist in bringing a Minnesota wardrobe to a Florida climate? Is not freedom of dress, mitigated only by common decency, a basic human right?

In any case the purpose of this study is to encourage the reader to take a closer look at the meaning and nature of modern man’s sartorial imprisonment - in sack suit and tie. At the same time, we also explore the emerging ethic of workplace informality and the rebirth of sartorial freedom from petty social constraints and corporate despotism

As we examine our fear and loathing of FreeDress in the modern workplace, I hope to make the reader a little more aware of the history of fashion tyranny, dress discrimination, and facilitate the growth of real individuality and sartorial freedom. Becoming comfortable with our God-given individuality is, after all, the very business of life.

This is not simply another “how-to” book for all those looking for

^{Dress & Diversity} 3

someone to tell them what to do. It is not my intent to tell anyone how to dress, what to wear, or when to wear it. Only you can discover and dress yourself and express your being... as you desire.

The only assumption in which I indulge is that the reader, in choos- ing to read this book, is interested in authentic freedom, personal style, creativity and comfort and not in mere caricatures of these important precepts of right living. For the traditionally-inclined, however, our explorations into dress behavior may result in some measure of discom- fort. For those less inclined to examine their dress habits, and whose lifestyles tend toward a fear of change, this essay may provide new insights and motivations. If not, one can always find comfort in tradi- tion and other-directed clothing, and feel smug we have “accepted things as they are.” In this way many have learned to take their lack of work- place freedom for granted.

Our sartorial chains will never be broken until we, as individuals, first break them and join others to dispel the power of uniformity and corporate commandment. Despite our feeble rationalizations, accep- tance of sartorial tyranny will never be a valid measure of success, either as individuals or a society. Particularly in a multi-cultural and diverse democracy, obsessive sartorial control and conformity signifies that social freedom and tolerance is needlessly circumscribed.

Clearly, the realities within many a workplace do not live up to our espoused ideals, the timeless words of our political charters, or our dig- nity as unique and free human beings. A lack of sartorial freedom is one telltale sign of a still immature, insecure, repressive, and oligarchic soci- ety. The ascendancy of a “success” theology of uniform workplace dress

- i.e., one serving to supplant the values of freedom, liberty, and comfort for all - is but strange behavior for descendants of those fearless Ameri- can pioneers who once risked life and limb to escape the crushing social strictures and class-based etiquette of old Europe.

However, no tyranny lasts forever. Dress dissent and change is well underway today. The very nature of change is that evolution and progress inevitably follow from new ideas, behaviors, and frames of ref- erence generated by courageous individuals. New visions of social free- dom and creativity never appear and take hold, however, without a cer- tain amount of personal courage and inspiration from others.

Within any realm new insight and understanding is liberating. Being alive is synonymous with exploration of new ways of living. Still, reac-

⁴ FreeDress For Success

tions by others to our sudden epiphanies of personal freedom can vary widely. There are always those who, even after the Bastille doors have been thrown open, continue to embrace their fear of the unknown and so choose to remain in their cells.

The chains of fear and habit may be weighty indeed.

Before we begin to explore and more fully comprehend “our” dress traditions we might reflect on the massive changes in society brought about by the industrial revolution. After centuries of enclosure, disen- franchisement, and landlessness contributed to greater urban desperation and dependency, what we might call enclosure-generated “free markets” meant that nearly ninety per-cent of the working population were no longer independent and free upon the land. As a result, whether by choice or circumstance, they were now employed for wage or salary in some form of corporate endeavor - with a “master” at the helm of an undemocratic, for profit, affair dictating the policies.

In contrast, before such urban industrialization of the vast majority most were self-employed, independent, engaged in a small business, agricultural operation, communal endeavor, piecework or seasonal labor. Today, this vast majority finds their existence far more precarious, con- ditional, and mortgaged. For most today their employments are at-will and dependent upon the sufferance of a small class of employers.

In effect, for a majority of “labor” their very existence and social freedom was becoming highly constricted due to labor’s relative impo- tence and lack of natural freedom upon the land - the loss of which means, for many, a no-exit “free” market.

With urban industrialization, the social power, freedom, and status of wage-earning individuals changed dramatically - and not for the bet- ter. Whereas greater natural freedom and autonomy were once the rule, a majority today are little more than wage-slaves with no natural free- dom, refuge, or sense of fundamental economic security - and many are but a paycheck or two away from the streets.

For this reason, the once greater prerogatives of the individual have increasingly come to be defined by powerful others in today’s corporate, for-profit, organizations - upon whom most are now dependent. As a result an unnatural desperation and dependence flourish within a rela- tively new type of “free market” and social tyranny dictated by capital.

With regard to our sartorial freedom, wage-labor’s existence in this newly industrialized world has proved little more than a new serfdom.

^{Dress & Diversity} 5

A lack of dress freedom is but one manifestation of a feckless and increasingly impotent “democracy.”

The impact of these structural changes in our society have long been studied by researchers, including Miller and Swanson. They noted that “much of the self-reliance and family cohesiveness that goes with pos- session of a small family holding or business is undermined. Family ties are weakened, values alter in the direction of a lessening of social con- cern. The changes are profound.”¹ Indeed, the fears of many genera- tions of uniformly-dressed organization men compound until even the memory of freedom is but vague and forgotten.

In effect, most in the workplace have come to occupy an “interme- diate zone” somewhere between slavery and freedom - and not neces- sarily of their own choosing. In fact, most today are born landless, sub- ject to endless rent and compound-interest mortgage, and into a pre- existing sustenance trade-off system. We now give our workday alle- giance to a vast, corporate employment complex or bureaucratic waste- land - which, by the nature of life emerging from the dependency of the majority, proceeds to generate authoritarianism, social deformity, oli- garchy, and theft of personal freedom.

Whatever else our industrial-age society has produced it has failed to preserve the natural freedom and workplace dignity of vast numbers of individuals now known as “labor.” As a result much of the character, freedom, and spontaneity of life have been processed out of society. As Elliott Jaques noted, “no standards have been established as to the limits within which these employment organizations must be managed if they are to contribute to a socially healthy society, rather than contributing, as they do now, to great disturbances of our society.”²

In practice, nearly everyone working today toils away in a hierar- chical system. We have failed to appreciate how this “executive hierar- chy” and its attendant powers have profoundly affected the very nature of economy and society. To a large extent, De Tocqueville’s prophecy of a sterile and flaccid democracy has come true - this due to the fact we toil away in a system generating dependence, fear, and conformity.

LABOR’S “FREEDOM” -

“In order to work, in order to live, you have to get a job - and get-

6 ^{FreeDress For Success}

ting a job means taking up a position in an executive hierarchy. Sec- ond, once you find a job, you will find yourself in one of the most sig- nificant of modern human relationships - that obtaining between a superior and a subordinate... Now what happens as a result of this way of living? First, there is the reality-based sense of uncertainty and insecurity; and second, the stirring of unconscious anxieties.”³

Elliot Jaques

“When white-collar people get jobs, they sell not only their time and energy, but their personalities as well. They sell by the week, month, their smiles and their kindly gestures, and they must practice this prompt repression of resentment and aggression.⁴”

C. Wright Mills

We emasculate both personal and political freedom to the extent we deface the individual in the workplace. In the process we stripmine democracy and rob the great wage-laboring majority of its power to overthrow corporate control, oligarchy, and fascism. If we cannot even manage our dress how can we manage our democracy?

On the other hand we also understand that how people are treated at work has a profound influence upon their productivity, loyalty, and atti- tudes toward their job and society at large. A widespread lack of natur- al independence, and the fear and insecurity it breeds, leads to workplace impotence and acceptance of tyranny. Rather than confront our condi- tion and hide-bound corporate taboos against individuality and sartorial freedom, we often hide in conformity. Like good slaves we identify with our captors rather than with our own freedom and right.

The best evidence for the reality and strength of social taboos, dress or otherwise, is how so few question their existence or rationale. While many grouse few dare challenge the dismal sameness in their workplace dress. Why? Have styles not changed before? Do we not believe in freedom, individuality, and seek to live it? Have we become a little too comfortable with enclosure, dependence, conformity and authoritarian management practices?

Our uniform style of professional workplace dress reveals some dis- turbing facts about our freedom. As businessmen and women, there is no way we can justify such dress conformity for the mass of “white col-

Dress & Diversity 7

lar” working men and women without revealing our hypocrisy and Stal- inist proclivities for control.

As for rationale, what “freedom” or style of “respect” requires an individual to relinquish their own dress liberties in order to conform to other’s expectations? Is this faustian, soul-destroying, bargain necessary in a democratic society and “free market” environment? Is any such uni- formity productive? Is it motivating to thwart employee freedoms instead of increasing their autonomy and self-respect?

When we do not control our own dress and style of clothing, what then is uniform dress doing for us, or to us? What does “our” workplace dress signify, portend, and produce? Is our imperialism, exploitation, social insensitivity, oligarchy, fascism, and environmental ruin not the larger impact and symptom of labor’s workplace impotence - all sym- bolized by the lack of sartorial freedom and diversity?

RATIONAL DRESS? -

“The fox condemns the trap, not himself”⁵

William Blake

“When a presidential order aimed at conserving energy set summer thermostats at 78 degrees in all public buildings in

1979, a Representative from Texas appeared in the House in a sport shirt. He was ordered out of the chambers by the Speak- er, who asserted legislators would not be allowed to come to the

House improperly attired.”⁶

Elliot Jaques

The essential first functions of clothing are to protect, conceal, and display. By far the most important function of clothing is to keep warm and secure our energy. Covering our bodies is a rational and necessary act, and the degree to which we do so depends upon our environment. The manner in which we do so is, of course, another question.

In many environments, however, neither rationality or freedom describe our dress habits and workplace uniformity. Why do we wear a

⁸ FreeDress For Success

suit and tie on a 90 degree day? Precisely such compulsive irrationality points to the madness of our current sartorial customs.

Indeed, irrational dress behavior reveals an underlying problem of estrangement from our bodies, senses, environment, and political ideals. Such strange and dysfunctional dress is not only an insult to individual freedom but is also symptomatic of a larger irrationality - i.e., one gen- erating many more negative impacts upon culture, economy, and envi- ronment. We need only examine the battered and precarious world we inhabit to ponder the dire consequences of workplace uniformity, corpo- rate commandment, and suppression of individuality.

Ironically, a commercial culture that prides itself on its rationality and freedom dresses as if it had neither. A pervasive fear of sartorial independence and dress diversity continues to dominate our economic and political institutions. Why, for example, is professional workplace dress not moving toward greater variety if, as many maintain, we are steadily advancing prosperity and societal tolerance?

One can only conclude our uniform, sack-suit, style of workplace dress is an indication we remain imprisoned in other-defined “norms” rather than basking in freedom, societal maturity, and tolerance.

The fact that so many leaders in business and politics - those charged with steering our future - still choose to conform to one mode of “accept- able” dress bodes ill for the future of industrial creativity and democra- cy. What does this rigid sartorial behavior tell us about the mind-set, and creative potential, of the captains of industry?

In general, organizations that continue to make a fetish of uniform dress insult the very charters, credos, and mission statements under which we, and they, operate. Further, as a society, we have yet to put dress behavior into any reasonable and rational perspective.

To appreciate our hypocrisy all we need do is examine the pictures on our currency. There we find evidence that no style (except perhaps the uniforms of prisoners) ever stay the same - Did George Washington look, or dress like, George Bush? Is Andrew Jackson wearing a tie?

Amidst material abundance, our inflexibility in commercial dress, and fear of sartorial freedom, point to a corporate control nexus and social neurosis seemingly beyond the control of the individual. In these settings, only habit, tradition, fear, and other irrational factors adequate- ly explain today’s “dress-for-success” professional workplace.

What is especially perplexing is that despite abundance we have yet,

Dress & Diversity 9

as a culture, to learn how to celebrate individuality and freedom... in workplace dress. The truth is most businessmen and politicians seem incapable of even the smallest variations in dress despite a limitless range of fabric, color and styles available from our economic cornu- copia. In short, our fear of sartorial deviation, and individuation, are more in evidence than our freedom, strength of character, and potential for infinite variation in personal style.

As professional men and women, we are pressed to understand, let alone explain, such circumscribed dress. Indeed, how did we get in this hatbox? How do we get out? Short of “dropping out” exactly how do we “come out”?

The answers beget more questions: Is our workplace a sartorial prison, or playground? Is dress freedom tied to wealth and economic status, to a dollar-yardstick? At what point in pursuit of material success do we become capable of sartorial freedom? Must we wait for our net worth, or national GNP, to reach some magical level before we seek, or allow, dress liberation in the workplace?

When it comes to workplace uniformity, it is difficult to explain what happened to freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Further, any time there is such disparity between our behavior and beliefs there will surely be effects, whether recognized or understood. Clearly, our personal and social incongruity is glaring and not without consequence.

First, the rigid and unvarying dress behavior of businessmen and politicians occurs in the so-called “free-est country in the world.” In short, we speak empty words and spout hoary shibboleths which have no real, everyday, meaning for the vast majority - and not simply in the mat- ter of workplace dress.

While some may feel adherence to a “power” suit norm indicates their serious and disciplined exterior, to growing numbers today such behavior symbolizes little more than an imprisoned soul - i.e., one fear- ful of sartorial transgression and self-definition. However, in what we are endlessly told is a “democratic” nation and a “free market” econo- my, many are awakening to their impotence and imprisonment in a cor- porate-controlled society - wherein the conventional “success” theory of uniform dress is but a sign of failure, dependence, and neo-slavery.

FAILURES AT FREEDOM -

¹⁰ FreeDress For Success

“We cannot be a nation of free people as long as we acquiesce to the tyranny of fashion. Nevertheless, tyrants can be overthrown. At some point, the trampled human spirit rises up and begins the grim struggle for freedom.”⁷

Jeanette & Robert Lauer

“Fashion is by no means trivial. It is a form of the dominance of the group over the individual, and is quite often harmful as benefi- cial.”⁸

Elliot Jacques

A multi-cultural world of great variety and cultural differentiation is rapidly reflecting a growing global corporate monoculture. Amidst cul- tural variety, a single style of business dress has emerged worldwide. This dismal behavior does not reflect freedom or multi-cultural diversi- ty and individuality. Instead, it speaks to our collective impotence, con- formity, and more accurately defines a gang - i.e., capital’s gang.

In practice, the rituals, hazing, and allegiance requirements of street gangs and corporate work groups are similar in many respects. They both involve a giving up of freedom in some fashion - all of which amounts to a ritualized removal of individuality and freedom of choice. Rather than accommodating individuality, all such exploitation-oriented groups proceed to mold it out of existence. As a result, sartorial freedom is often the first casualty within enterprises up to no good.

Whether in business or politics, groups and gangs do not build char- acter with uniformity so much as they destroy it by creating armored individuals and institutional facade. The logic and agenda of the group, and the Imperial Other, provides convenient excuse to hide from oneself, from the burden of freedom and responsibility, and from the joy of implementing individuality.

It is precisely this dependent belonging that is the Achilles heel of modern society and root of many a corporate or communist evil. All uni- form approaches fail if we believe that to belong means we also become the de-faced property of a group, organization, or political “ism.” When we describe ourselves as belonging to a group we no longer belong to ourselves, and so control over our lives and personal expression has been handed to others. Again, this is often for the simple reason we have no

Dress & Diversity ¹¹

other means to survive and are forced to accept whatever work and labor conditions emerge.

In these curious and desperate acts of “free market” self-mutilation, we have willingly erased our god-given individuality and let the group ethic and purpose become our identity - not to mention controlling the very direction and purpose of society. As a result of such impotent and dependent belonging, a monolithic Other reigns supreme.

Neither our employment or our citizenship should ever be synony- mous with self-immolation. If it is we become incapable of being our- selves, and freedom remains a myth. In these settings our “success” is undermined by a resentment over the sacrifice of our individuality.

ANGLO-CONFORMITY -

“You cannot live in this country without some degree of Anglo-con- formity.”⁹

Jacquelyn Mitchell

The result of centuries of English and European imperialism remain evident even today. Indeed, for many non-anglo’s their living and deal- ing in a largely WASP (White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant) controlled and defined world involves various degrees of cultural surrender and giving up of one’s historic freedoms.

Regardless of the culture and its origins, monocultural dress expec- tations effect people everywhere. In short, to be in business or politics today you must wear the clothes of the Anglo Gang, and suffer quietly your cultural crisis and schizophrenia.

Once caught in this predicament some might resort to a bleak “melt- ing-pot” rational to explain their embrace of dress conformity. Howev- er, this behavior is based on the sorry assumption that all people, despite their cultural backgrounds and personal preferences, must somehow melt into “anglo-conformity.” Surely, given the great technological and social change of the twenty-first century, it is high time more men and women jettison uniformity and adorn themselves with freedom.

The challenge for enlightened executives today is to manage a grow- ing cultural and sartorial diversity with tact, diplomacy, and respect. The importance of new management styles and strategies is necessitated

12 ^{FreeDress For Success}

by the fact that, for the next decade or more, 84% of new entrants to the work force will be women, minorities, and immigrants - not to mention those of younger generations. New workplace attitudes are also becom- ing far more relevant and rewarding as increasing percentages of per- sonnel are no longer “employees” but, instead, independent contractors and temps over whom we have, and want, less control.

Regardless, no rational makes any sense for the stultifying unifor- mity of the average professional, as opposed to those in the army or police force. Yet the primary reason most do not exercise their work- place dress freedom is they remain imprisoned in the expectations of others, or what they perceive such expectations to be.

While we like to think of ourselves as “rugged” entrepreneurs and businessmen, when it comes to freedom of dress, diversity and defining our style, we do not reflect these values or grasp the opportunity.

To become successful human beings - capable of expressing the full panoply of human rights and potential - requires independence of mind and a marketplace fearlessness. One would think the first to display such independence would be the “strong-willed” business types and “inde- pendent” politicians. Unfortunately, it is these very groups which appear to lack courage for sartorial diversity.

Whatever the reasons, we can never succeed with false and fearful definitions of “success” - all of which conveniently eliminate any neces- sity for sartorial courage or tolerance for the rights of others.

The uniformity we see in the marketplace today is neither an appeal- ing style, technique for real success, or efficacious management strategy. Rather, it is a relic of antiquated control techniques utilized by imperial monarchs and dictators, most of whom have long since passed from the world stage - only to be replaced by a global corporate oligarchy.

In any case, such conformist dress behavior is, I believe, one of the major causes and symptoms of on-going societal discomfort and discon- tent. We do not yet quite comprehend, either as individuals or a society, the psychic and social costs of these abridgements of our freedom. We do not realize how sartorial slavery contributes to identity crises, anomie, anxiety, stress, and management problems.

Of necessity, due to our corporate corsets, all manner of release is needed and sought by those caught within a rigid and formal workplace. Yet many fear relaxation not only in their dress but in their marketplace demeanor. Our investment in petty “dress-for-success” restrictions and

^{Dress & Diversity} 13

formality have only made us more repressed, insincere, phony, intoler- ant, and imperial.

Conflict and the urge to control ooze from those unable to relax and let down their defenses. Such facades cloud up many an organization and political chamber. Still, we do not quite understand what is bother- ing us. We may, however, sense the nature of the problem and know our other-driven sartorial posturing and vapid success ethic is failing us.

In any case, many do not seem able to muster the courage to escape workplace tyranny and nonsensical dress behavior. So we wear our “power” suits, day-in and day-out, to impress others but wind up leaving the impression we fear only ourselves.

Naturally, we have reasons for our uniformity. Dig a little, howev- er, and the rationale crumbles. We are then left with doubts about the state of our freedom and manhood. At this stage, either denial sets in or we increase our self-expression.

The irony is that, as sartorially powerless individuals, we are all the more attracted to theories of artificial power and success via dress. However, this image-conscious pretense of power only highlights our other-directed impotence. In any case, for many, dressing for business is no longer fun, and by requiring a stiff formality during the work day we have also stolen the pleasure of the night.

Aside from a few high-tech enclaves of informality, most have no real idea today of what a nation of truly free individuals manifests because such places do not exist. Most do not have the courage, or per- mission, to exercise real independence. Instead, a spirit-crushing con- formity, inflicted by one generation upon another, keeps the ball of dress slavery rolling over freedom, diversity, and creativity.

Without freedom of choice there can be little or no enjoyment and satisfaction in our workplace dress. Senseless sartorial obeisance thus becomes a primary factor in workplace dissatisfaction.

Again, workplace dress requirements are often nothing less than a slave’s rite of passage. It makes no difference whether we are cultural or corporate slaves. The fact is any dictated dress in the workplace - other than safety clothing and minimal forms of employee identification

- is a form of slavery and denial of basic human, and cultural, rights.

In practice, it appears only the isolated and naturally independent individual, or rich and well-off, possess any effective freedom. For this reason our modern professional workplaces of the wage-dependent con-

14 ^{FreeDress For Success}

tinue to reek of comic-opera... minus a denouement.

We are living inside a Beckett play, inhabiting a tragi-comedy, and waiting for a sartorial Godot with “No Exit” in sight.

Change is long overdue, and just as cycles are a part of nature, so changes in style and fashion are also part of human nature. For this rea- son new waves of individuality, complete with new styles of workplace dress, will continue to emerge. Today, we are waking to the fact we have no need of corporate uniforms or sartorial pretense.

CONFORMITY OR CREATIVITY? -

“To clothe a man falsely is only to distress his spirit and to make him incongruous and ridiculous.”⁹

Lakota Indian Chief

“The individual by nature detests conformity. And yet he conforms. Why? He’s an enemy of society if he doesn’t conform, an enemy to himself if he does. The army of workers must be as uniform as an army of goose-steppers, as cooperative as a colony of ants, as subor- dinate as a Univac. America is becoming a nation of robots, with a deadly similarity in bearing, dress, manners. America is mass-pro- ducing Americans, we are headed for a bee- hive society - no rebels, no nonconformists, no rugged individualists, no leaders. We must rediscover the creative and independent individual and give rein to his initiative.”¹⁰

Marie Beynon Ray

Despite emergence of a few pockets of sartorial freedom, few of the adherents to a “dress-for-success” code appear relaxed enough to have a laugh at their uniformity, much less escape its clutches. For many it remains a serious game, and exactly this seriousness is the disease.

Fearful and accepting of a ruling regime, we often become become complicit and embrace all the imperial justifications for our slavish behavior. Yet we know the real reason is simple dependency and fear of the slavemaster’s whip. Like good collectivists believing they are pur- chasing security with their freedom we proceed to buy the big lie - only to find we have neither security or freedom.

A disparity between our public and private personas, along with the

^{Dress & Diversity} 15

constant weight of mask maintenance, is what drives us crazy and drains energy. In fact, workplace incongruity is stressing and killing us. We want to be real but, first, we must be false and properly attired in hopes of getting to that ever-receding point and time where we gain enough money and independence to be ourselves again. In this “some day we’ll be free game” we wind up forever chasing our tails.

As a face-saving device we propose that our uniformed behavior is out of deference to others - all of whom are busy deferring their own freedom to others. Our puny excuses are like entangled snakes - impos- sible to separate. Everyone is deferring to others out of fear of loss of status. As a result, almost no one in business or politics exhibits sartor- ial guts, freedom, juice, or individuality. We’re a nation of weaklings.

As mature individuals in a “free” society, are we interested in repli- cating someone else’s freedom, and giving up our sartorial rights? Is this the essence of human understanding? Is this living? Is this freedom?

As managers, why do we worry about sartorial freedom? Has free- dom been unkind to us? Has freedom been unproductive? Do we not understand its efficacy? Why have we allowed business environments to become so dull and boring? Are we not courageous, or smart enough, to enliven the workplace and liberate individuals? Have power suits become a form of dope? Are we hooked on Armani? Can we not make the workplace a creative funplace rather than conformist’s prison?

THE NAKED TRUTH -

“The magic of the goddess dwelt more in the reality of her flesh than in her garments, since creation was a function of the female body not of any external accouterments. In contrast to this earlier emphasis on nakedness, the magic of men and their gods usually dwelt in their garments. Patriarchal societies generally made much of uniforms, vestments, badges of rank, and other decorations by which men defined themselves.”¹¹

Barbara Walker

For many millennia mankind roamed the world in near-naked splen- dor while waiting for the fruit to ripen in sub-tropical Edens. In colder climes (and draped in splendid, un-endangered species, fur coats) our

16 ^{FreeDress For Success}

ancestors chased plentiful herds over the tundra.

Our early existence as hunter-gatherers was then simple, easy, and filled with leisure time. Life was one, and concepts of work and sin had yet to be invented.

Soon, however, these same lamentable concepts emerged as control devices. They emerged to destroy leisure and turn sustenance-seeking into time-consuming activity requiring a heavy dollop of guilt and fear to sustain its dreary, neo-slave, nature.

The creators of guilt, sin, work, and other power plays and ploys appear to have been those wizened weaklings who - once spurned by females as desirable mates - had no choice but to become morose moral- ists, and manic producers to enhance their appeal. With natural freedom and security becoming history for the landless and urban bound, puri- tanical accumulators began to look good to legions of disenfranchised and desperate females.

It is when scarcity and enclosures appear, and imperial thievery reigns, that problems begin and various forms of wage-slavery and involuntary uniformity proliferate... like “globalization.”

In the historical nature of things either you are one of those busy stealing more land and surplus for ruling landlords, monarchs, or corpo- rate behemoths, or you are joining a rebellion - all of which require armies, uniforms, and lots of black-robed priests to bury the dead. Over time, these endless battles over land, natural freedom, democracy and enfranchisement meant that more than one male muscle became impor- tant for survival.

As a result of either perceived, or actual, scarcities, and the imperi- al nature of man-kind in a world of disenfranchised women, the idea of private property and marriage bonds developed. In many cultures, men combined to overthrow historic and natural matriarchies, took women as prisoners and vanquished males as slaves.

Prior to the onslaught of imperial patriarchy and righteous monothe- ism, matriarchy often prevailed. This was due to the fact that women, having the power to create human beings, were creatures to be both feared and worshiped. As a result of their procreative powers they must somehow be linked to God.. or is it Goddess?

In this environment, men came to understand they had better look good, and be good, to gain and retain the sexual favors of women. As a result, it was men who painted their faces and prepared the most prepos-

Dress & Diversity ₁₇

terous plumage in hopes of attracting Big Mother. Otherwise, they risked having their gene pool go down the drain... so to speak.

As Margaret Mead discovered in her observations of many native societies, the meaning of being male or female is primarily the result of social conditioning. In several cultures she found males and females played different roles, virtually the opposite of western ideals. As she noted, women were in command and “took the lead in matters like mat- ing, and dealt with such practical concerns as fishing and trading. The men behaved much as our traditional women. They worried about their appearance, their jewelry, and their competition with other males for female attention.”¹²

In societies where scarcity is not a problem, male power and domi- nance, and the sartorial effects attendant thereto, did not arise. Over time, male fears of scarcity, sexual and otherwise, lead men to dominate women. Men’s attire, once designed primarily for seduction, became tai- lored for intimidation and battle. Instead of comfort and personal style we began to dress for others, and instilling fear and rank became prima- ry sartorial values. As a result, more rational values of personal style and comfort became secondary, if not taboo.

Alongside the use of clothing for power, status, and rank we have the fact women were becoming the property of men. At the same time men became serious, fearsome, and overdressed creatures who “work” for a living. Only in recent times have those of the ruling and profes- sional classes seen fit to attempt to rectify these ancient blunders.

Domination, however, has its price. Once women were under male authority, and physical might prevailed in the economy of scarce and plundered resources, it became necessary for men to protect their “assets” by diminishing the allure of feminine charms. What better way then to have women cover up, stay in the house, wear no make-up, and attract no other potential suitors. Time for your Chador, dear.

The first rules of dress must surely have emanated from fearful male minds. Later, man’s sartorial torts and repressive technologies were to reach their zenith in the invention of the chastity belt.

Anyone who has done any “research” in National Geographic mag- azines knows that, in “primitive” societies, clothing is put on to draw attention and increase the attractiveness of erogenous zones - which oth- erwise remain on display at all times and become ordinary. Primitives, it seems, understood the erotic, value-added, concept of lingerie and sex-

18 ^{FreeDress For Success}

ual mystery - not to mention rational protection from the elements for certain sensitive parts of our bodies.

Further, when human lifespans were cruelly short, the nature of our concerns were doubtless different from today. What were our primary concerns when mankind’s average lifespan was perhaps 25 years, and to reach forty was to have lived a full and complete life?

Sartorially speaking, what have increased lifespans done for, or to, mankind? For one, it has given us the “generation gap.” Today, a con- stant source of friction, and sartorial distinction, exists between young and old, middle-aged, corporately employed, and everybody else.

The origins of these generational power and style conflicts may well stem from the fact the young enjoy potent sexual powers while the old have to settle for political and social power. In other words, while the young revel in Edenic pleasures, the growing disease of middle-age con- tinues to plague mankind. Words like “discipline” and “respect” acquire the force of missiles.

Today, we realize middle-age is that dangerous period when waning creative and sexual powers begin to create moralistic and fearful cur- mudgeons out of once playful individuals.

In other words, the longer our lifespans the more fearful and power- prone men became - and so the more we try to hold onto the past, and our power symbols, by resisting youthful innovation and freedom. Increasingly, older men become jealous of younger men, and feel out of place, out of time, and foolish in their fading peacock and power outfits. Thus, over the ages, men growing long in years are forced to retire into civic power games, moral and religious bigotry, and dull clothing.

Once cuckolded, of course, any old social and marketplace power schemes are better than none. With longer lifespans aging men had plen- ty of time to come up with various schemes and rationale for their con- tinuing to control society, women, and young males in particular. In this way the cuckolded became tyrants, over-dressed gang members, and what we now call politicians, policeman, and sundry moralists.

Face it, because older men are sensitive about the decline of their sexual prowess, they need substitutes. So they demand “respect” along with absolute power over women and young males. Older men, in patri- archal societies, are forced to be shrewd because that’s all they have left. Control is their art form, and dress their disguise. This ersatz “power” and sartorial authoritarianism is woven from whole cloth.

^{Dress & Diversity} 19

Yet our drive for a more democratic, humane, and free existence remains - as well as a vague sense of something amiss in human affairs.

Indeed, a nagging impulse pushes us toward greater freedom, truth, beauty, enfranchisement, and justice. Emanating from our forebrains, this evolutionary beacon points mankind in the right direction. This is the primary reason why, once we have satisfied our food, shelter and sex- ual needs, we are biologically programmed to hunt for freedom, truth, beauty, justice, and seek enlightenment.

On the path of this pilgrimage, however, the realities of scarcity, ter- ritory, fear, dependency, and unbridled desire lead to creation of ene- mies, gangs, labor, capital, and other assorted class and power symbols. For as long as fear and scarcity prevail we flog women and enemies alike with our symbols - be they dress, sword, or mitre.

The result of all this symbol battling meant a “fight-or-flight” one- upmanship became ingrained in fear-driven human animals. As a result of our lack of natural freedom and independence, the more we fear for survival, sustenance, and employment the more we hide in artificial power and dress symbols. Dress and power have a long and nasty rela- tionship - much like labor and capital.

In any event, a decline of matriarchies into male-dominated king- doms had serious consequences for sartorial freedom. As a rule, male- dominated kingdoms have been obsessed with class and power-dress distinctions. It wasn’t long before dressing, display, and social status games began to consume more human energy and resources than any other activity. In stratified societies, aristocrats had plenty of time for elaborate clothing games as there wasn’t much work to do - this little annoyance was handled by serfs, slaves, and landless “labor.”

History illustrates that the first rule of instituting any form of slav- ery, economic or otherwise, is to fix the sartorial standards. Conquered people are seldom allowed to dress like their conquerors, much less in ways they prefer. If you can’t tell a slave from a conqueror and landed aristocrat, where is your status, and what’s the point? Slavery itself, a patriarchal invention, was then the first of mankind’s white-collar, blue- collar arrangements.

It was the invention of weaving which raised the art of dress, and sartorial distinction and flourish, to new heights of beauty, boldness, and real craziness. Along many a trade route, rare cloth became more valu- able than gold. Emperors paid extravagant prices to obtain the best

20 ^{FreeDress For Success}

materials and sought to monopolize trade from the Far East. Silk worms were even smuggled from China in the handle of a cane to become the basis of the western silk industry.

In every culture a scarcity of fine fabric made it a valued item and symbol of wealth and status. Power and wealth display, and class dis- tinctions, thus became a primary function of clothing. It is no accident that regencies, ruling classes, and priesthoods have relied heavily on dress and sartorial symbols to maintain their appearance of authority.

In this way clothing became vestment and divorced from utilitarian function. It was not long before control of the output of weaving looms was recognized as effective way to garner and maintain social power.

As Lauer suggested in this regard, there are “four different kinds of imagery that have the theme of power - force, tyranny, divinity and roy- alty.”¹³ All tyrannies, whether sacred or secular, are woven with favored sartorial symbols.

Such unnatural and unmerited hierarchies tend to unravel easily upon any sudden outbursts of freedom and change in style. For this reason, free access to certain fabrics and dyes were prevented by those in power. The Greek historian, Herodotus, speaks of decrees that forbid the pub- lic to appear at the theatre in dyed clothes, especially in colors reserved for royalty. During the Middle Ages, purples and deep shades of red were reserved by royalty and unavailable to common folk.

However, these same imperial “colored” folk were not without their critics. In the third century B.C., Commodianus observed that “dye is unnecessary for health, afflicts greedy eyes, and moreover it is false, for God would have made the sheep purple if he had wished the woolen- clothes to be purple.”¹⁴

In short, these exotic fabrics and dyes once had the same hold over the public’s imagination as did bound books after invention of the print- ing press. Each new technology and symbol of might was then monop- olized by the powerful for as long as possible. Eventually, the spell of these power tools and status symbols were broken by growing familiar- ity and common access.

For our purposes, the important historical point is that, as kingdoms and empires have come and gone, styles of dress have changed, often forcibly. New imperial edicts decreed changes in length of hair, style of garment, color of clothing, and all manner of sartorial minutiae in order to break with previous ruling classes and power systems.

^{Dress & Diversity} 21

In all such cases, the individual is little more than a pawn moved about by imperial powers. For this reason, sartorial freedom and mar- ketplace individuality have long been a dream of the common man, and of professional classes serving ruling oligarchies.

The history of mankind is filled with tales of the dis-enfranchise- ment of the individual. More glorious moments have meant greater empowerment of the individual. In any case the salient fact surrounding power transitions is they often involve dictation of new styles, and the castrations of the individual. When it comes to freedom of dress in the workplace, mankind is still trying to give birth to effective freedom.

FASHION AND STYLE -

“We must destroy here and now the widely held prejudice that fash- ion is only concerned with the outer cover of man in dress and orna- ment. Since it is a general social institution it affects and shapes man as a whole. In reality, fashion is a universal, formative, principle in civilization, capable of affecting and transforming not only the human body, but also its modes of expression.”¹⁵

Rene Konig

Beyond the simple protective and energy-saving functions of cloth- ing we encounter the world of fashion and style - wherein we presum- ably derive pleasure from our garments. Beyond simple utility and mere fashion lies the realm of sartorial symbol - i.e., clothing as armor, weaponry, power, disguise, and deceit. In repressive and tradition-bound cultures clothing and style become political in nature.

Fashion, on the other hand, is change itself. To the extent we are free and daring enough to express it, fashion is fun, free, and of little consequence. It is largely “deviations of short duration and narrow lati- tude.” A good example of one extremely narrow deviation would be the peregrinations of tie widths - over the vast expanse of perhaps three- quarters of an inch in recent years.

While this is not exactly radical change or fearless behavior, such minutiae is the stuff of fashion and, of course, planned obselescence.

Fashion as such is not our problem. While fashions may vary from year to year, styles tend to remain relatively fixed for decades and even

22 ^{FreeDress For Success}

centuries. It is the political and social implications of dress and “style” which take us into different territory. Whether rigid or whimsical, style has more to say about us as individuals and as a society.

Dramatic changes in style occur far less frequently than what have become merchant-driven, annual, fashion alterations. It is common to see changes in style tied to social revolutions stemming from changes in consciousness, perspective, political power, and generational upheaval.

Clearly, we need not worry about the width of ties and many other trivial “deviations of narrow latitude.” Instead, style, as it indicates the breadth of our minds and scope of freedom in the marketplace, is our concern. Without social latitude and meaningful individual freedom there can be no style worthy of the name. Clothing is a trivial affair only when it is free and unfettered, and sartorial transgressions free of work- place consequences.

It is in the arena of style - wherein fashion may harden into obses- sion and pervade the entire realm of human affairs - that we need to understand our sartorial underpinnings and social strictures. As history has illustrated, the more rigid and crystallized a style becomes, the more it is prone to sudden shattering.

Today, for the most part, commercial and political dress habits still reflect the vestiges of monarchical manners and a pathetic “organization man” era. In any case, where workplace dress transgressions become akin to taboos it is difficult to exaggerate their significance, or underes- timate the power of sartorial fixations.

For many, our workplace styles remain hemmed in by tradition and social convention. Where livelihoods are predicated upon adoption of a certain sartorial style we are no longer speaking of mere fashion. Indeed, we have entered the domain of dictated style and abuse of human rights.

CLOTHING HIERARCHY -

“During the thirteenth century, at the precise moment when the urban middle classes began to rise, there occurred a sudden and steep increase in the number of dress rules and regulations which have continued unabated ever since. The character of fashion proves to be a universal formative principle of society, acquiring a down- right tyrannical control over social development, with modern econ-

^{Dress & Diversity} 23

omy an ally of truly inexhaustible resources.”¹⁶

Rene Konig

24 ^{FreeDress For Success}

empire. Civilian costume also acquired a highly protective, decorated, padded and armored look; it expressed the lust of European upper-class society for military conquest and material wealth.”¹⁹

Beyond this quixotic despotism we can also trace the sartorial slav- ery of modern man to land enclosures in pre-elizabethan England and greater Europe - all of which had the effect of forcing large numbers of previously independent and landed rural inhabitants into urban squalor and desperate labors. Overnight, many independent landowners were converted from Freemen to wage slaves. Humiliation of the Freeman became complete as all manner of control over the minutiae of life had been transferred to a new urban class of employers. Welcome to the “free market.”

To a large extent, the sack suit and tie style of workplace dress is symbolic of the growth of the middle and mortgaged classes, and the abolition of mandated clothing distinctions which had previously divid- ed wealthy and poor. Seen over a longer period, mankind appears to be involved in an evolutionary process of regaining personal freedom and dignity. The growth of global oligarchy notwithstanding, we appear to be re-entering another phase of this on-going revolution of democracy and workplace liberation. With a little more courage, we can easily ini- tiate our own personal historic transition from forced dress to FreeDress, from social tyranny to social liberation.

MANIFEST DRESSTINY -

“Changes in men’s clothes from the flamboyant to the drab arose from the acceptance of the teachings of Calvin and Martin Luther, and from the Protestantism which was responsible for the general adoption of puritan clothes. The men of the new middle class took over the authority of the aristocracy and made their own drab Puri- tan clothes the badge of male superiority, and this has continued right down to today.”²⁰

Lawrence Langner

After collapse of medieval social systems, a new sartorial tyranny emerged in the dull and drab “style” of the Puritans. Driven by a pitiless and self-righteous Calvinism, emerging merchant classes challenged the

Dress & Diversity ²⁵

power of traditional, landed, aristocracies. The nouveau riche were then eager to disassociate themselves from rural and urban poor, just as pre- vailing aristocracies made it their business to relieve themselves from any form of menial labor, and avoid any social or sartorial identification with laboring classes.

As a result of societal changes a power to regulate dress passed from aristocracies to a new puritanical merchant middle class - i.e., one char- acterized by strict religious codes which not only embraced slavery but begat the worst of cruel fanaticisms and human tortures for unbelievers, dissenters, and libertines.

One fashion historian, Diana DeMarly, noted the bleak nature of this change: “The Protestant ethic changed the clothes worn by professionals from colour to black sobriety, which was further reinforced by the Puri- tan regime during the civil war. Lawyers, university Dons in holy orders, teachers, doctors of medicine, and apothecaries were all wearing black suits or else dark grey, on an increasing scale.”²¹

Thus did we enter the Dark Age... of clothing.

Continue reading this ebook at Smashwords.
Purchase this book or download sample versions for your ebook reader.
(Pages 1-48 show above.)