IN THE previous entry about President Obama’s habit of putting his feet up on tables and desks, the reader Carolyn writes:

I have always been a careless, absent-minded, casual dresser. Long ago, my father tried periodically to explain to me the importance of dressing up, upon occasion, but I never quite “got it.” In recent years, I have tried to do a better job of it, simply upon the principle of trying to avoid giving needless offense to other people.

But Elaine M. Jordan’s reference to “the obligation of maintaining the decorum we owe to ourselves, our neighbors, and God and His Angels” caused the light bulb to come on in my head. I get it! (And sorry to be so obtuse, Daddy.)

This is a fascinating comment because it expresses an attitude that is so common and that many of us have probably held at some point. In an age of radical informality, we dress how we feel like dressing and clothes are mostly a personal concern.

The French writer Philippe Bénéton had interesting things to say on this subject in his book Equality by Default. The clothes worn by university students and professors were the focal point of his reflections on dress and the values it expresses. A world of almost uniform casualness, he said, is not one conducive to thought.

Bénéton, a professor of law and political science at the University of Rennes, described his habit of wearing a tie to class.

Thus there are now two kinds of professors: those who wear a tie, and those with an open collar. I belong to the first group; it would not occur to me to teach a class or to attend a faculty meeting without a tie, not to mention more casual dress. To do so would make me feel that I was slipping, cheating on the obligations of my profession, debasing the institution….

Let’s take a closer look at this phenomenon. In the name of what would one wear a tie to teach a class? From a practical point of view, teaching requires no particular outfit—it’s about talking. One can talk just as well in sandals or in shoes, in a kilt or in pants, wearing a tie or with an open collar. In terms of utility, what is the difference of one way or another? So just what is the purpose of necktie? Shouldn’t everyone dress as he or she likes? To define a norm is to limit everyone’s autonomy, to infringe upon equality default.

The utilitarian point of view is blind to the language of forms, and the spirit of modern equality is allergic to it. Yet if clothing means nothing, why not come to class dirty and ragged? The language of forms expresses the link between dress and attitude. To wear a tie in certain circumstances is to apply the criteria that articulate the hierarchical character of life, to give effect to distinctions among activities, times, ways of being. In a world not yet overlaid by equality by default, one does not dress in the same way for a ceremony as for a picnic, to go to class or to go to a soccer game. The professor who wears a tie is refusing to consider everything as equivalent; by choosing to “dress up” in order to teach, he is saying that activity is worth a certain seriousness and formality; he is upholding the honor of the profession and of the institution. Appropriate dress is a sign of respect for the university. It means that grand old woman, this alma mater responsible for transmittingour past, is worthy of consideration and that her mission remains or should remain a great and distinctive one — all the more so since society is subject to the influence of equality by default. The necktie is among those symbolic forms which say to students: “Here we are serious about serious things, things that are by nature different from you might do elsewhere.”

What things? The tasks of the tie-wearing professor are not limited to the transmission of knowledge; he is also a teacher of attitudes of the intellect. Respect for forms of dress goes along with respect for forms that make up the habitus required for intellectual life: one does not talk the same way in jeans or when wearing a tie, and casual language is not an intellectual virtue. Negligence in dress and grooming is likely to carry over into the life of the mind. The professor teaches much more than the content of his lectures. It matters what he says, but also who he is. The following are some of habits of mind that a professor must develop in his students: to proceed in an orderly fashion; to make progress step by step; to fix the mind on its object; to avoid lazy approximations; to admit one’s ignorance; to submit to what is real  — in sum, to achieve knowledge rigorously, to cultivate reason, and avoid sloppiness. I think for example of an admirable professor, Raymond Aron, and of that “famous voice of bronze . . . to which so many students listened without a moment’s lapse of attention, and who learned from this self-mastery, mistrust of passions, rigor, and ‘simple and tranquil’ honesty. Respect for forms is a component of this education  of the mind and spirit. The necktie possesses an educative virtue.

 [Equality by Default; ISI Books, transl. Ralph Hancock; pp 28-29.]

— Comments —

Mary writes:

Carolyn makes a good point. I find myself often telling my kids that since they are the beneficiaries of the kindness, courtesy and good manners of others that they are obligated in turn to be kind, courteous and have good manners themselves. Even children understand that the world would be an unpleasant place at best if no one was courteous or unselfish; we all must do our part. This puts me in mind of another situation in which someone I know benefits from a good but feels no obligation toward it.

A few years back I was discussing the idea of two women marrying and having children with a liberal male family member. He was all for it, and told me so in a very smug way to send me the message that he wasn’t a dull, dim-witted, closed-minded conservative like I was. I replied that he must not think very much of himself and his position as father and husband in his family. He was a little rattled – I don’t think he had ever considered that side of the equation before; he had been too busy trying to be open-minded. Though it obviously gave him pause, he smoothed it over and changed the subject.

The above-mentioned very liberal, tolerant, open-minded atheist lives in the whitest, most prosperous suburb around, with the best schools (boy, did they research before buying), prettiest neighborhoods and most charming downtown areas that could be found. It is a veritable paradise of suburbia. He espouses totally liberal values while at the same time he is the direct beneficiary of the Judeo-Christian society at which he is now thumbing his nose. He obviously feels no obligation toward that society, on the contrary, he openly opposes it. It boggles the mind. He has no idea that those in power who share his values started years ago to deconstruct the very lifestyle that he and his family carefully chose and love so much. I know many others like him.

                                             —- Comments —-

Carolyn writes:

The part of Elaine M. Jordan’s comment that made the light bulb come on for me were the ideas that we owe decorum to God and His Angels, and to ourselves.

Almost everyone–even Prof. Beneton and my father–who talks about the importance of dress does so in terms of what you are saying to others. But I live in the Pacific Northwest–perhaps the most casual region in this casual country–where half the people in a nice restaurant are in jeans. Not only does nobody mind if you show up in jeans; they aren’t going to glean any of Prof. Bénéton’s (or Daddy’s) perspective if you show up in a dress (or a suit and tie). If you speak in a language your audience doesn’t understand, has communication occurred?

The new ideas for me (which I totally failed to articulate in my original comment!) were that:

a) it might be appropriate to express to God the dignity of bearing His image and His Spirit in my dress, as well as in my thought, speech and (other, non-sartorial) actions;

b) it might be appropriate, and indeed necessary, to continually remind myself that I bear the imago Dei and am indwelt by the Holy Spirit–and that “robes” appropriate to the dignity of my position might be one way to do that.

Laura writes:

Even if everyone dresses casually in your area, as they do in most parts of the West, formal dress still conveys certain ideas. People are able to understand what is communicated by a suit or a tie or an Indian headdress even if they can’t put the message into words. If a college student shows up at a social gathering in a suit, his friends will accuse him of putting on airs and make fun of him. Even if they never see their friends in suits and ties, they know a suit is a form of deference to authority and that it violates their code of self-expression and outward ease. (A lot of casual clothing is very studied in its effects so it’s not the result of a necessarily casual attitude.)

Bénéton spoke of working at a university where virtually everyone but a few professors in the humanities dressed casually. (Science professors are much less inclined to wear ties, he said.)

When Bénéton spoke of formal clothing as expressing the “hierarchical character of life,” he was saying something close to what you are saying. The professor’s tie does not just convey respect for others, it conveys respect for truth and knowledge. Saying it expresses respect for God too, as you are saying, is distinctly different, but I think he would agree.

Please follow and like us: