I was the only man (on jury duty) who didn't work for the court and who was wearing a suit. Or a tie. Or a dress shirt. There's something really weird going on in our culture, where people seem to have replaced decorating their bodies with clothes with decorating them with tattoos, then wearing as little clothing as possible to show them off -- and it's usually the last people who should be wearing as little clothing as possible.
I've recently gotten into the early years of Dallas again on DVD. While I know it's just a TV show, so I can't say how accurate it is and I'm not old enough to remember, I can't help but notice how most of the men on the show wear suits and ties almost all the time -- and when they're dressed casually, like on a weekend, it's usually in a sports jacket and open-collared dress shirt. I also notice how, whenever a man is working in his office in his shirtsleeves and his secretary buzzes him to say he has a guest, he always gets up and puts his suit jacket on before the person walks in. We've gone in 30 years from men who don't want to be seen in their shirtsleeves to men who don't want to wear shirts with sleeves.
Photo: Horiyoshi III (Yoshihito Nakano)
Posts
18 comments:
I agree completely with the author, but there is another insidious force at work, as well.
In my experience, most Americans perceive jury duty not as an opportunity for civic contribution, but as a chore to be avoided at any cost. They assume that uneducated- or trashy-seeming venirepersons are most likely to be sent home (not so--I am a trial lawyer and can vouch for that--but that is the assumption), so they dress the part in order to try to avoid jury duty.
And then, having skirted the duty, they complain about jurors acquitting drug users or awarding $10 million to a victim of medical malpractice.
In most states, even one juror can block a verdict. The next time you find yourself complaining about some crazy jury, make sure you answer your next jury duty summons.
(When I was last summoned, I wore a suit, tie, and French cuffs--in case I was discharged early enough to go back to the office. One of the sides deliberately struck me. This probably had more to do with my being a trial lawyer than my dress; your mileage may vary.)
Pertinent observations from your correspondent, Will. The American citizen has certainly fallen from the ideal type. All is not completely lost, however. I refer readers to the following, the first of a three part analysis of American Man. It begins bleakly, but there is redemption in part 3. American Macho
The reference to Dallas is a bit stretched, but you are, of course, right.
To a European who resides in the US like me, it is amazing how comfortable life in the US is - that is a value that should be cherished. Everything is easier here: applying for a mortgage, shopiing, parking.
Yet, this comfort thing is somewhat of a cult, wehre we have replaced beauty with comfort in our perception of what is good.
By contrast, Italy and some other European countries (certainly Spain, possibly England and France) still equate good with beauty in the timeless Greek ideal of kalokagathia.
Two different issues here. Jury service and the state of modern dress. On dress, at least in met areas, my sense is that the tide is turning. The extent to which it turns and if it reaches the hinterlands is yet to be determined. On juries, most people tell me being "properly" dressed means being struck. Could be urban myth of course.
Will, is that your tatoo? Cool! ;-)
Yes, it certainly is a different culture. I still cannot wrap my head around the casual workplace. Yesterday I saw a partner at my old law firm taking a smoke outside his office in the heart of the financial district. Polo shirt, shorts, and no socks! Not exactly a Mad Man.
I too have noticed a fair share of people with very noticeable tatoos. A tatoo used to be associated with either a sailor or a truck driver. To be polite, tatoos were not associated with the upper classes. I find it very weird to see women with very prominent tatoos on their legs and arms.
Well, Will, I guess the tatoo crowd will not be waiting for your next report discussing the merits of English versus Italian cloth. Or you can do some future features on the tatoo artisans of Greenwich Village.
I in turn think there is something somewhat insidious going on with the email. We should be praising Americans' growing comfort with their bodies--however they look, with whatever they're decorated--as a sign that we are finally shaking off the oppressive Puritanical hangover that we've suffered for longer than we've been a nation.
The problem at hand is not that Americans are more comfortable showing off their bodies. The real issue is that we've lost touch with the notion that dress is fundamentally contextual. This isn't a value grounded in classist ideas about what sailors and truck drivers do vs. the rest of "polite" society. It's a value that should transcend class, to embrace the idea (very not Western, by the way, just look at Japan) that dress is about reflecting your opinion of the occasion and your surroundings. Jury duty is a serious responsibility and it should be taken as such temperamentally as well as sartorially.
On the other hand, if those of us who care about classic dress are going to grow and survive as a force in society, we need to get beyond outdated notions that there are we elites who know what's up, and then there's the rabble who is incapable of knowing the proper order of things. If anything, that's the sentiment that makes the entire system of trial by jury possible.
Increasingly casual dress is neither the cause nor a sympton of the downfall of society (after all our recent financial woes can be attributed to those in three-piece suits rather than cut-off shorts).
Folks need to lighten up a touch and get their priorities in check.
^Note that this doesn't, by an means, speak to society at large perceiving jury duty as an easily disregarded obligation rather than a right.
seitelman, I have two tattoos and plan on acquiring more. I am also a subscriber to this blog, and, while my income level does not really allow me to follow Will's advice as much as I might like, I always look forward to reading what he has to say. Giuseppe at the fine blog An Affordable Wardrobe is another style-inclined (and much better dressed than most) man who has several tattoos. I suggest, rather, as some have suggested, that we get beyond the belief that only the down-and-out and the completely gauche can be tattooed. Tattooing is here to stay, at least until my generation is dead, and hopefully so is dressing well.
If I may say tattoos and being well dressed are not at odds. If someone is tattooed and has it covered you would never know, and if someone is poorly dressed and not tattooed the criticism of dress still stands, irrespective of their body modification.
"(after all our recent financial woes can be attributed to those in three-piece suits rather than cut-off shorts)."
Actually most of those financial models were designed by guys in cut off shorts. The problem was the guys in suits didn't understand them, they just pretended they did.
As to tattoos, they are extremely vulgar. But then so is plenty of other commonly accepted behavior so I can't get too exercised about it one way or another. The mystery to me is a) why anyone would submit to the discomfort involved and b) have the tatooed considered how they'll look in forty years time on acres of sagging flesh?
I keep hearing how people dress (way) down the way they do because they want to be comfortable.
I've come to the conclusion, based on what I have observed over my 50 ++ years is that they seek is not comfort but what is easy.
I find it interesting that views on tattoos seem to have changed over the years. Jenny, Lady Randolph Churchill had a tattooed snake right around her waste and another tattoo around her wrist. I read that WSC had an anchor tattoo on his arm and both Prince Albert Victor and Prince George (sons of Edward VII) acquired a tattoo a piece in their naval careers. More recently, the suave Ray Milland had a skull and snake on an upper arm! Nowadays, tattooes tend to be regarded by some as the marks of the socially oppressed, but it was not always so.
I have a lot of tattoos.
The last time I was summoned for jury duty, I wore a flannel navy blazer, cavalry twill pants, a blue oxford and a striped tie.
Imagine that?
Mandatory dress codes should return. You wear a jacket and tie in court. Period. Can somebody tell me why judges don't simply start obligating people to dress well?
Just wish the ladies would cut it out with the tattoos...
An old guy with tattoos is fine (since he probably got them in his wild days).
Grandma with tattoos sort of frightens me....
It's important for the "theatre of the court" that jurors not be expected to wear anything beyond ordinary streetwear, unlike everyone else in the room. Unlike the judge, they do not need to project authority. Unlike the litigants and their counsel, they are not trying to make an impression.
This is because they alone are present as a favour to the court. Even though what they are doing is an important civic and legal obligation, they are nevertheless taking time out of their busy schedules to be involved in a matter that otherwise does not concern them.
Of course, if ordinary streetwear for you is a jacket and tie (and one might very well bemoan that it isn't for everyone), that is obviously acceptable.
I'm a bit late to the party, but I wonder what are others' opinions about men and earrings? They would seem to fall in the same category of tattoos in terms of body modifications, but unlike most tattoos, they are always visible.
I have two small earrings that I've had since I was 20 years old, and I've taken them out for an interview or two, but I'm not sure anyone takes much note of them here in the Bay Area. I also wear a jacket and tie to work every day. That receives far more notice.
I am another follower of the blog who has tattoos but wouldn't be caught dead at jury duty (or hardly anywhere else) out of a suit. I don't begrudge people who flaunt their ink (I live in Los Angeles, where about half the population has tattoos), but I wouldn't feel comfortable passing judgment on someone while clad in a cutoff velour tracksuit.
Giuseppe,
You do realize how exceptional you are—don't you?
Brian said,
"we are finally shaking off the oppressive Puritanical hangover that we've suffered"
I beg to differ on the interpretation of our early heritage.
We "sophisticated" moderns are, all too often, stunningly incapable of seeing anything good about our past. The Puritans may seem extreme, but they had strong families, a healthy work ethic, and a safe society. Can the same be said for us?
As it turns out, being released from the constraints that formerly bound us has not made us happier. Now that we've said "let it all hang out," we find that seeing others doing exactly that is unpleasant, even offensive.
I believe there is a connection between standards of dress and standards of conduct, but only in that they are both outward manifestations of internal attitude. In short, suppression of our selfishness, and concurrent consideration for others, lead us not only to treat others nicely, but also to dress appropriately for the situation. When we want to show respect for others, proper behavior, sartorial or otherwise, seems to follow.
Sadly, there are few role models around. We are fortunate that Will is so gracious in sharing his sartorial expertise with us. I also thank him for promoting, and maintaining, a gentlemanly atmosphere in the comments.
Post a Comment