It's not about not being able to mend at all, these things are fairly easy to do (or to learn).
It's unthinkable anyone would come to work in mended clothes. They would be concerned everyone thinks they're poor and can't afford buying new clothes. As long as there is this social stigma, and clothing brands interest in people buying new pieces of clothing continuously, we can forget about mending.
Affluence and status signaling using clothing: is there an inverse correlation? Any recommended scientific literature on this?
Personal anecdata:
* I notice a more relaxed attitude to mended clothes in my native western European country than in my eastern European second home country.
* I also noticed a pattern in secondary school. In the economically privileged environment I went to school, kids cared less about clothing brands than at the less afluent schools in the vicinity.
* I carry mended clothes to work every now and then.
>Affluence and status signaling using clothing: is there an inverse correlation?
It's straightforward countersignalling - some people are sufficiently wealthy that the cost of their clothes carry negligible economic signalling value, so they can signify the fact that they're above that level of status game or use their clothes to convey different kinds of status. Nobody would believe that the Prince of Wales can't afford a new suit, so patching a tear in his jacket signals thrift and tradition. The patch in his jacket signals that he is old money, that his status is higher than someone who needs to signal their status through clothing. Distressed jeans are the obvious example of retail-level countersignalling; when you can buy a new pair of jeans for $8 at Walmart, the fact that your jeans aren't ripped at the knee carries very limited signalling value, making the countersignal more accessible.
We see the same thing with cycling. The very poor cycle, because they can't afford a car. The very wealthy cycle, because nobody would believe that they can't afford a car and choosing to cycle signals that they could obviously afford to drive but they're conscious of their health or the environment. People in the middle wouldn't be seen dead on a bicycle, because they're not confident of their ability to convey the high-status countersignal rather than the low-status signal. In this example, social capital often substitutes for economic capital; if you're young, bohemian and cosmopolitan, you can more easily convey the countersignal. There's a fairly nuanced meta-signal that says "I have the education and the opportunity needed to be a wealthy professional, but I have made the conscious choice to be an impoverished artist instead".
I'd argue that the strong social safety net in western Europe drives more people into countersignalling and meta-signalling behaviour, because base-level signalling of economic security is less necessary. You don't need to signal the fact that you're not desperately poor in a society where very few people are desperately poor, which opens up a wider range of signalling behaviours.
When I visited London, UK a couple years ago, I saw the "class system" up close for the first time. A friend pointed out that the lower and upper class actually had a more in common in certain ways than the upper and middle. Neither typically fit in with certain norms. The lower due to necessity, the upper due to immunity - they would simply be labeled eccentric.
It has stuck with me every since, and honestly has made me realize how silly this practice of signaling to each other is. It is entirely a phenomenon coming out of the middle class. Even signaling among the upper class is usually due to young or new money.
I often wonder if it was always like this, or of it was created when the consumer middle class was created in the last hundred or so years.
>I often wonder if it was always like this, or of it was created when the consumer middle class was created in the last hundred or so years.
Sumptuary laws are an interesting example - at various times in our history, people of certain social status were forbidden by law to wear certain garments or own certain items. Sometimes this was to prevent runaway consumption due to zero-sum status games, but often it was because the declining cost of luxury goods or the emergence of a nouveau riche undermined the status of the established elite.
I'd argue that the invention of fashion was a necessary response to the falling cost of clothing; when most people of a given social standing can afford equally high-quality clothing, fashion emerges as a kind of planned obsolescence.
The emergence of cultural capital amongst the aristocracy of the 17th century feels remarkably modern. During this period, the role of universities expanded from being practical training colleges for clergymen to a status symbol. The children of landowners could afford to spend their time cultivating "useless" knowledge, while the children of the nouveau riche merchant class needed to learn the family business. Young aristocrats would embark on what we might now describe as a gap year, travelling across Europe to gather knowledge of exotic cultures and collect souvenirs. It could be argued that modern science emerged largely as a byproduct of status signalling - many of the idle rich spent their days showing off expensive scientific apparatus and their access to the latest books and journals, inadvertently inventing modernity in the process.
> It's unthinkable anyone would come to work in mended clothes.
Nailed it. The same is true in many social situations as well (although by no means all - repaired or damaged clothing is absolutely acceptable at gigs for many genres, for example).
The problem is not that we can't mend, but that we can't mend seamlessly. We can repair clothes but can't do so in a way that makes them good as new again, which sends an undesirable social signal in many situations.
Really? I'm probably not going to go into the office or on a trip with clothing that has some obvious quick and dirty repair or is in need of one. But I semi-regularly mend or have mended clothing that's missing a button, has a hem that needs to be tacked back in place, etc. Those aren't visible if they're done even half-competently.
I definitely have been both to the office and on holidays with self-mended clothes. Especially tears in my favourite shorts I repaired perhaps ten times before giving up on the brittle fabric. I never was worried of stigma of clearly mended clothes; I rather was quite proud of my bohemian clothing.
Maybe it helps that we work in software engineering, so it's quite clear to my colleagues that we could buy a new pair of shorts for each and every day? Or maybe it's because of increase in environmental concerns especially with younger urban people? I can't honestly say, as it never occurred to me that it could convey a negative message.
Why is it unthinkable? I do. I wouldn't consider throwing something away I ripped somehow, unless it was also nearing worn out - like all the material was becoming worn or too thin.
I might have been sniffy about it in my 20s. Couldn't care less nowadays as it bears no relation to my poverty or not.
Isn't it the other way around? Someone who mends their own clothes looks capable, creative, and economical. Also, elbow patches are trendy.
Of course there is a difference between mending otherwise fine clothing and having to go on wearing worn or threadbare clothes, as you rightly point out.
People who are confident and strong can definitely pull off mended clothes. On the other hand, it's not wise to hand your children obviously mended stuff if you know that they already struggle socially. Bullies sense the weak ones and attacks based on clothing are common, also in later life (although this phenomenon peaks at school).
It’s about signaling social status. If you dress in cheap clothes but you drive a really nice car no one’s going to think you’re poor. If you wear the exact same clothes and don’t have a car people will make a different guess as to your social status.
I just took my son to buy his first car on his own. I told my son that if we couldn’t make the numbers work for him, I would just let him take over payments on my car for the next year ($300/month) and I would by myself another car.
I guess because of the cheap car I was driving (It is about $15K brand new and I bought it used four years ago) and I showed up in just casual clothes, they thought I was struggling.
When they heard I was contemplating buying myself a car instead and I was looking at some of the higher end cars, they kept steering me to the lower cost cars. Not that I would have bought anything from there anyway. I don’t buy new cars.
We're talking about at work, where I've never seen any hint it matters beyond be clean, be presentable, be personable etc. 30 years ago, usually wear a suit. In other words, fit in. Choose carefully when making first impression - be that interview or date. :)
At work being junior programmer or CTO reveals status. These days both rich and poor alike will buy £10 jeans, or £2 T shirts. I think no less of them or any higher of someone with a label addiction, if I even noticed. I would think a lot less of someone who acted on perceived social status at work. We're not there for a first date.
The article includes a picture of Prince Charles wearing a mended jacket. If it’s acceptable for royalty to appear in public in mended clothing I imagine it’s ok for us plebeians.
He has, at times, been derided for it in the media, especially at the lower end. At least he's followed his eco beliefs fairly consistently for decades. It would be much easier for him to not bother whilst he's being sent around the globe on official duties.
Prince Charles doesn't have to care because he is Prince Charles.
It's like casual friday. The CEO can wear shorts and the junior engineer can probably wear shorts. However, you probably won't see the upwardly mobile managers ever wearing shorts without a direct order.
Social signalling matters and clothes are part of social signalling.
Not really. Countless behaviors are seen as "chic" when done by millionaires and thrashy when done by lower class: owning 2nd hand of flashy clothing, drinking alcohol early, owning a strip of land or a horse, keeping a food garden, doing home repairs...
Prince Charles doesn't need to look sharp to prop up his status, which is solidified in the most formal manner. Neither is the Prince best known for his stylishness.
This model is way too simple. People don’t distinguish themselves between those they don’t deal with. No one’s going to confuse a social worker with the genuinely wealthy, but they could pass for a professional like a doctor or lawyer. Equally they could be mistaken for someone of the class of their clients if they dress like them. The social worker will try to dress like the successful professional. The professional is not going to be mistaken for a poor person. If it happens they’d laugh unconcerned and move on. But they are probably socially exposed to genuinely wealthy people or the extremely professionally successful, businessmen, parliamentarians or congresspeople, executives. They could move into these circles themselves or marry into them.
People define themselves by those they could plausibly be mistaken for, not the full range of possible social roles.
> Everyone wants to look like they are a member of a higher class than they actually are. But everyone also wants to avoid getting mistaken for a member of a poorer class. So for example, the middle-class wants to look upper-class, but also wants to make sure no one accidentally mistakes them for lower-class.
> But there is a limit both to people’s ambition and to their fear. No one has any hopes of getting mistaken for a class two levels higher than their own: a lower-class person may hope to appear middle-class, but their mannerisms, accent, appearance, peer group, and whatever make it permanently impossible for them to appear upper-class. Likewise, a member of the upper-class may worry about being mistaken for middle-class, but there is no way they will ever get mistaken for lower-class, let alone underclass.
It's unthinkable anyone would come to work in mended clothes. They would be concerned everyone thinks they're poor and can't afford buying new clothes. As long as there is this social stigma, and clothing brands interest in people buying new pieces of clothing continuously, we can forget about mending.