Reconstitution against Renunciation - Essay Example

Reconstitution against Renunciation: Male Fashion and Sexuality under the Gaze The concept of human sexuality has always been composed ofvarious interwoven elements. It is assumed of course, that the concept itself is constructed; that is, defined along the way by different conventions. This is manifested through different social forms, and the one particular form that will be considered here is clothing fashion. In this paper, the author examines the reconstitution and redefinition of masculinity vis-à-vis the changes in male fashion. It is argued here that while there does appear to be a renunciation of masculinity based on the changes in fashion, there is simply a transformation in the way masculinity is conceptualized. The Great Masculine Renunciation The psychologist J. C. Flugel wrote of the "Great Masculine Renunciation" in his book, Psychology of Clothes, where he stated that clothes served to map sexuality and ascribe a certain sexual mark on the body. In other words, what a person wears serves to showcase various statements about him/her simultaneously: social status, preferences, and of course, sexuality. Flugel claims that up until the eighteenth century, “ornaments were used both as a means of erotic exposure and as a way of signaling social status, wealth, and rank” (Boscagli, 1996). There is interplay between being determined by one’s clothing, and having one’s clothing determined by who or what one is. The point is that clothes serve a socially significant purpose, which is to carry and convey information about the wearer. Masculinity as a concept does not escape this mapping through fashion. During the 1840s, a shift occurred in male fashion and this is referred to as the “Great Masculine Renunciation” by fashion historians. This is the turning away from the defining fashion of masculinity. What signaled the changes in the concept of masculinity was this shift in male fashion, from the flamboyant “dandyism” during the early 1800s that never really became popular, to the darker and subdued fashion that came into vogue. What was initially considered masculine clothing was shunned in favor of the more plain-looking suit. Masculine attire became simpler, functioning as a means of social uniformity rather than distinction. The ethos of the middle class that had come to power with the revolution became visible in the sobriety of masculine clothing (Boscagli, 1996). Along with this shift, masculinity as a concept seemed to have changed accordingly. This was characteristic of nineteenth century fashion. But what is really significant is the subtle shift in the exercise of power: the gaze shifted from the male being the object of the gaze, exhibiting masculinity, to being the bearer of the gaze, establishing a concept of femininity in order to strengthen masculinity. As Boscagli (1996) further states, “The masculine role as bearer of the gaze— he who sees and is not seen—is itself a construct that has been historically and culturally produced.” This is a notion that will be developed further into the paper. Changes in Fashion during the 18th and 19th Centuries “Male fashion of the 18th century was less varied than female fashion as it consisted of the same set of garments throughout: breeches, waistcoat and justaucorps” (Bender, 2006). What follows are photographs with brief descriptions of eighteenth century male fashion. 1700-1720 1730s 1750s It can be seen from the above photos that the waistcoat with a slit at the center back was opened at the bottom end. The front edge of the justaucorps was curved slightly, with a narrow torso. Stockings were sometimes worn under the breeches, and the shoes were square-toed, with small buckles. The sleeve cuffs also reached up to the elbow. Curly wigs were worn, but compared with seventeenth century wigs, these were shorter in length. Gentlemen were expected to always have the following accessories: the tricorn hat, walking sticks and, most importantly, the sword as a status symbol, sticking out from underneath the coat’s slit. As a further status symbol, the slit was necessary for riding a horse. 1771 1786 1793 Changes in eighteenth century male fashion noticeably becomes more pronounced, as evidenced by the above photographs. It can be seen that the waistcoat no longer sports the flaring bottom edge, paving the way for the eventual tailcoat, and can be buttoned only at the chest. There are lesser decorations, indicating the advent of the "new simplicity" that originated in England and had, by this time, swept all across Europe (Bender, 2006). Cuffs were smaller, and the wigs changed up to the point when they were altogether done away with. In place of wigs, shorter hair was sported with a tousled look. High, standing collars, tight sleeves, and low heels characterized the new, radical look. The tricorn hats were replaced by bicorn hats and top hats. 1823 1825 By the nineteenth century, ultra-fashionable men known as "dandies" spent lavishly for the care and attention to their dress. They shared a fashion profile with women, adopting similar fabrics and details. The man’s tailcoat had a high waistline, and the sleeves were full and puffy at the shoulders, with the shoulders sloped downward from the neck. Both details were similar to the fashion ideas of women’s clothing. An article from the Boston Public Library states: The delicacy of the man’s pinstriped trousers, bright buttons, lavishly curled hair, shoes with little bows, and snowy high cravat matched the overall effect of the female toilette. Men and women shared the same faces and poses (Changes in 19th Century Male Fashion, 2003). As mentioned earlier however, the 1840s marked a significant change in men’s fashion. The Great Masculinity Renunciation was so-called because in place of the then fashionable mode, more plain-looking suits came into popular use. 1886 It is clearly noticeable how a certain uniformity and austerity came to dominate the male fashion trend. It was as if the once-exhibited male form now came to be hidden beneath a plain and boring suit. The symbols for masculinity seemed to have been erased with this turning away from the splendor of male fashion. However, it is argued here that there is a more subtle transformation that occurred, one that is in fact contrary to a renunciation. Reconstitution against Renunciation While it appears that there was indeed a renunciation of masculine power as indicated by the turning away from the social and public symbols of masculinity, what really occurred was a shifting not just simply of fashion trends, but more importantly, of an almost imperceptible exercise of power. It can be observed that male fashion initially legitimized itself as the picture of masculinity by giving a display of masculine form, i.e. tight-fitting sleeves to show off the arms, a tightly dressed but exposed crotch to highlight the genitals, etc. and this is a detail that was shared with the notion of femininity. However, by covering up the male form (wearing plain, closed, suits) while simultaneously retaining phallic symbols (from wearing swords to wearing a tie in the twentieth century, as Flugel insists), masculinity is redefined. The shift occurred from being the object of the gaze, to being the bearer of the gaze. Masculinity was therefore defined by adopting the gaze and focusing it on women. Sexuality was and still is, being defined through the idea of the gaze. In this particular case, fashion served as the vehicle for establishing a concept of both masculinity and femininity. Notice how masculinity is constantly being formed and constituted. Initially, masculinity was established by showing it, by exhibiting it. Then a shift occurs, characterized by defining masculinity vis-à-vis a concept of femininity. It is the masculine that watches, that observes the female. But hen, it is interesting that the initial outward display of masculinity is revived in the form of tight fitting pants in the early seventies with the coming of the androgynous look. Rock stars in particular, would wear tight pants in order to highlight the bulge of their penises. In other words, masculinity is now defined in both ways: by the literal exhibition of masculinity, and by directing the masculine gaze at the female form. In conclusion, perhaps renunciation is an inappropriate term to describe the change in male fashion during the 1800s. It is an indication that masculinity, as a concept, is continually being constituted, defined, and redefined. What occurred in the so-called Great Masculine Renunciation was in fact a reconstitution, a reformulation of the concept itself. As evidenced by the changing modes of signification, masculinity alongside femininity is subject to political transformation. References Bender, A. (2006). Male fashion of the 18th century. Retrieved December 4, 2006, Web site: http://www.marquise.de/en/1700/menguide/18men0.shtml Boscagli, M. (1996). Eye on the flesh: fashions of masculinity in the early twentieth century. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. (2003). Changes in 19th Century Male Fashion. Retrieved December 4, 2006, from Boston Public Library Rare Books Department Web site: http://www.bpl.org/research/rb/fashion/case4.htm Cherulli, K. C. B. (2005, May 05). History of fashion trends and the male sexuality. Retrieved December 4, 2006, from History of Sexuality Web site: http://www.historyofsexuality.com/Article35.phtml Craik, J. (1994). The face of fashion. New York: Routledge. Gamman, L. & Marshment, M. (Ed.). (1989). The female gaze. Seattle: The Real Comet Press. Messner, M. (1997). Politics of masculinities. California: SAGE Publications. Read More