Sorry for the break in posting, folks. I am trying to organise the irons I have in the fire—but hey! Here’s another 1,300+ word post on what I consider relevant fashion issues. Don’t worry, some of the irons in the fire are ‘lighter’ reading options for ILS.
I briefly mentioned power dressing last week, in context of scarves as accessories. Now, power dressing—a very formalised approach to business attire that reached a peak in the mid to late 1980s—had textbooks of sorts, one both men and one for women, written in 1975 and 1977, respectively—Dress For Success and The Woman’s Dress For Success Book, both written by John T. Molloy. He also wrote updates for each, some 15-20 years later. Molloy’s approach was stridently research-based, as a consultant for unnamed big name corporations he’d built up seventeen years’ worth of data on clothing (nine in women’s clothing) by the time he was writing The Woman’s Dress For Success Book. What is amazing is that this one man and his research team were part of the small group whose work snowballed into creating the look of the yuppie and, in doing so, further embedding subconscious and conscious class divisions that affect us to this day. Here’s the opening of Molloy’s book for ladies:
This is the most important book ever written about women’s clothes because it is based on scientific research, not on opinion.
The advice in this book will help women make substantial gains in business and in their social lives. It should also revolutionize their clothes-buying habits.
Most American women dress for failure. I have said that before about men, and research shows that it applies equally to women. Women dress for failure because they make three mistakes.
- They let the fashion industry influence their choice of business clothes.
- They often still view themselves mainly as sex objects.
- They let their socioeconomic background influence their choice of clothing.
The only reasonable alternative is for women to let science help them choose their clothes.[i]
I’m not even going to get into the paternalistic aspects of this, because using his data and word as law is something that is present in his book for guys as well (and because they’re endless and depressing). As Molloy says himself later on in the same chapter—
It is a stark reality that men dominate the power structure—in business, in government, in education. I am not suggesting that women dress to impress men simply because they are men. My advice to women is based on the same principle as my advice to men: Your clothes should move you up socially and in business, not hold you back.[ii]
So, we’re going to ignore gems like “In summer women have always worn light and brightly coloured dresses to the office. Do this only if you wish to be or remain a secretary.”[iii] and focus instead on the sea change in professional fashion Molloy encouraged with these two sentences:
There is one firm and dramatic step women can take toward professional equality with men. They can adopt a business uniform.[iv]
Illustrations from Molloy’s ‘The Woman’s Dress For Success Book’, 1977.
Expectations of “The Man”
Based on his own numbers, Molloy began gathering his data on influential business dress in 1960. A generally turbulent cultural time, to say the least, there was a growing relaxed attitude among youth in regards to clothing. “The values expressed by the business suit no longer matched those of the typical college student”[v]. Though those already firmly entrenched in the business world valued the suit and the status inherent in a good suit, the new blood was rocking bright jackets and fanciful ties in their leisure and formal wear[vi] and were most probably not making the best impressions with corporate. In his research, showing pictures and photographs of folks in different ensembles to CEOs, Molloy was most probably finding that the older men, the decision makers, wanted suits and “authoritative” looks.
Running through guides like Molloy’s was the sharp awareness of clothing’s ability to portray the wearer as someone of and with power. Here’s one more of his gems:
At one large corporation someone asked what I thought a woman should do if the boss sent her for coffee. My response was, “If you have to tell your boss not to send you for coffee, you must have already told him nonverbally that you were ready to go.”
I went on to say that the problem was being approached from the wrong perspective.
Women who want to be taken seriously and who want to succeed must dress in a way that says, “I am important. I am a business professional and don’t you dare send me for coffee!”
There were two extremely successful women in the room at the time. Both agreed with me. And they said the reason most young women wouldn’t succeed was because they didn’t look like they wanted to succeed.[vii]
Reinforcement through style guides
Molloy wasn’t the only one aware of this. Armloads of guides on dressing were popping up in the mid to late 1970s as part of the reaction against the “anything goes” stylings of the 1960s and in response to the influx of professional women workers who were searching for some way to get a foot up the corporate ladder. They ranged from articles in Newsweek and women’s mags[viii] to tomes like Elegance: A Guide to Quality Menswear by Bruce Boyer, referenced oh so nicely in the time capsule American Psycho.
You’re a clod. It’s an excellent book. His theory remains we shouldn’t feel restricted from wearing a sweater vest with a suit,” I say. “Did you hear me call you a clod?”
“But doesn’t he point out that a vest shouldn’t overpower the suit?” Van Patten offers tentatively.
“Yes . . .” I’m mildly irritated that Van Patten has done his homework but asks for advice nonetheless. I calmly continue. “With discrete pinstripes you should wear a subdued blue or charcoal gray vest. A plaid suit would call for a bolder vest.”
“And remember,” McDermott adds, “with a regular vest the last button should be left undone.”
I glance sharply at McDermott. He smiles, sips his drink and then smacks his lips, satisfied.[ix]
What began as aspirational dressing and a search for a uniform was honed through the guides into as complex a set of rules as had been followed at the turn of the century. Limitations on colours, cut, pattern, material were the heavy skeleton a person’s business wardrobe was built on. The rules were the rules, even if they didn’t apply to you. Research and the guides said that glasses created a stronger sense of authority[x], so one wore “non-prescription Oliver Peoples redwood-framed glasses,”[xi] or some equivalent.
Overwhelming assimilation of style
Conveniently, changes in suit fabric manufacture were making the designer suit more accessible to the common man. In the 1970s Italian textile industries began switching from high virgin wool content to using waste wool, creating a cheaper suit fabric that “accommodated the fashion industry whereby new collections, new ideas, new colours and new patterns are presented each season.”[xii] Between 1975 and 1985 the profits of men’s ready-to-wear increased 12%, and in the 1980’s all major designer’s houses were carrying a men’s line.[xiii]
The awareness of fashion labels that began in the 1970s (with denim, funnily enough[xiv]), the availability—or seeming availability— of the clothing, “a swing back to the political right”[xv] and a money boom that had combined with credit to make everything seem possible all mixed together in a power shake that coloured the 1980s in suits and immobile hair and brand names. You either Were or you Weren’t. The soft steps towards blurring the class lines were halted. Sure, one could “cross-shop”, but the objective was still to buy clothes that “come across as upper middle class.”[xvi]
Of course, when a mass of society and fashion push one way, there will be a faction pushing against, and oh dang the things that were created to be anti-suit! Creativity and risk-taking styles are better as retaliation, and if you look, the highs of fashion and the arts are commonly seen when one side is reacting against another. Each group spurs the other into higher and higher caricature as they refine themselves to a pure thesis.
So, I acknowledge that other things besides power dressing were going on in the 1980’s. And it was exactly that, combined with some more worldly affairs, that left the power suit stranded on the pedestal of caricature.
[i] The Woman’s Dress For Success Book
, John T. Molloy, 1977. p. 15-16
[ii] Molloy p. 32
[iii] Molloy p. 66
[iv] Molloy p. 34
[v] Fashion and Its Social Agendas, Diana Crane, 2000. p.175
[vii] Molloy p. 26-27
[viii] “One magazine ran a piece on “power dressing.” Another reported on how women were being advised to “dress the trip to the top.” And a third discussed how “clothes mean business,” . . . Fashion Power, Jeanette C. Lauer, Robert H. Lauer, 1981. p. 163 & 170
[ix] American Psycho, Brett Easton Ellis, 1991. p. 154-155
[x] Molloy p. 88
[xi] Ellis p. 109
[xii] Men’s Fashion in the Twentieth Century, Maria Costantino, 1997. p. 127
[xiii] Costantino p. 121-123
[xiv] Costantino p. 111
[xv] Costantino p. 127
[xvi] Molloy p. 171