Professional Documents
Culture Documents
'DYLG.XFKWD
3XEOLVKHGE\8QLYHUVLW\RI&DOLIRUQLD3UHVV
'DYLG.XFKWD
7KH7KUHH3LHFH6XLWDQG0RGHUQ0DVFXOLQLW\(QJODQG
%HUNHOH\8QLYHUVLW\RI&DOLIRUQLD3UHVV
3URMHFW086( :HE0DUKWWSPXVHMKXHGX
Access provided by New York University (18 Feb 2016 21:53 GMT)
chapter 7
Inconspicuous Consumption
174
Elite understatement was still a fashion statement; inconspicuous consumption still a form of consumption, however inverted or opposed to
Inconspicuous Consumption
175
It was just as easy to affect gravity and plainness as to affect extravaganceperhaps even easier. There cannot be greater vulgarity than an
affectation of superior simplicity, grumbled the author of Habits of
Good Society.12 No more than conspicuous consumption, inconspicuous consumption failed to convey superior example. Hence it is, that
what is called gravity in many situations of life deserves so little respect,
complained John Aiken; . . . gravity of demeanor, as opposed to levity,
is merely the dress of a dignied station, and may easily be assumed
176
Figure 29. Adam Buck, Thomas Hope and his family, 1813. Thomas Hope descended
from a family of bankers whose wealth enabled him to purchase the London mansion
of the countess of Warwick. Interested in architecture, furniture, and clothing design,
Hope had himself and his family portrayed in neo-classical style, his daughter indirectly
reproducing the maternal tasks of her mother while the soberly dressed father stands
partially removed from them. Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection.
along with the robe, the chain, and the peruke, by the most insignicant
tool of ofce, who has just sense enough to avoid playing the fool out of
season.13 Gravity could not be trusted to connote virtue, precisely because it was equally a fashion susceptible to affectation. Modest masculinity was no less performative, and no more authentic, than luxury
and effeminacy, since there was little sartorial difference between studied plainness and the frivolous man [who] . . . studies the dress and
not the characters of men.14 The difference, Arthur Freeling asserted,
between a gentleman and a fop is, that the latter values himself on his
Inconspicuous Consumption
177
dress; the former laughs at, while at the same time he knows he must not
neglect it.15 In an age of uniformity, the difference was no longer what
one wore, but whether one took ones clothing seriously. In the end,
then, as the author of Advice to a Young Gentleman well understood,
modesty is an appearance assumed to gain an object.16 Despite
dening masculinity in opposition to affectation, appearance, and performativity, then, courtesy manuals (almost by denition) undermined
themselves by teaching how to assume an appearance of masculine modesty. If the frivolous man had been condemned for studying dress and
not character, courtesy manuals nonetheless prescribed that the utmost
care should be exercised to avoid even the appearance of desiring to attract attention, thus collapsing the distinction between plainness and
frivolity, modesty and affectation.17 Respectable masculinity still needed
to be maintained with the utmost care, precisely because the respectable man is one worthy of regard, literally worth turning back to
look atauthenticity was still based on manipulating appearances.18
As William Hazlitt warned in a timeless platitude, rst impressions are
often the truest.19 From the old sartorial regime to the great masculine
renunciation, the same clichs applied.
Since the introduction of the three-piece suit, then, Englishmen may
have renounced sartorial splendor by dening masculine modesty as natural and timeless, but they did not gain independence from Madame la
Mode, from the studied articiality, inauthenticity, and affectation of a
fashion system. In 1850, the three-piece suit certainly was cut of different cloth than the Elizabethan courtiers doublet and hose (and ruffs and
lace). But Englishmen had not escaped the anxious attention to dress
which they so condemned as the vain pursuit of women. Indeed, as
foreign observers felt rsthand, the compulsion to inconspicuous consumption merely installed an inverted fashion system, one that equally
demanded uniformity. Although there is not much of studied parade,
Joshua White testied, or useless ceremony in the ordinary intercourse
with the English, yet it is necessary to comply with some of their custom,
to shun the appearance of singularity . . . It is, then, almost indispensable for foreigners to adopt the prevailing fashion in dress.20 Even in
this simple style of dress, the English still show[ed] the tyranny of
their fashions. An Englishman, from early habit, submits to it with the
greatest reverence, and considers every instance of rebellion against it as
absurd. This apparently trivial circumstance is followed by the most important consequences.21 The tyranny of their fashions now instilled
simplicity rather than splendor, even though simplicity was meant to
178