Veblen and the New Firm Culture of Casual Dress

-- By SamHershey - 23 Apr 2010

Introduction

In Chapter 7 of The Theory of the Leisure Class, Thorstein Veblen explores the ways in which the upper-class uses clothing to project an image of idle dominance. Although fashions have significantly changed since the time of Veblen’s writing—indeed, he predicts that fashions must constantly change for high-end clothing to retain its aura of wastefulness—Veblen’s central point remains constant: “Our apparel is always in evidence and affords an indication of our pecuniary standing to all observes at the first glance.” Law firms serve as an excellent example of the ways in which clothing comes to convey deeper significance; the very phrase “white shoe law firm” glibly deploys dress-code to illustrate an entire firm culture. In recent years, however, law firms have famously undergone a shift in dress more fundamental than a simple passing of fashions: they have slackened their once-strict dress codes to new casual standards. While on the surface this shift may seem to undermine Veblen’s arguments about the cultural purposes of high-end fashion, Veblen’s theories actually anticipate and illuminate the reasons for this new trend.

Veblen's Explanation for the Shift to the Casual in Dress

The History of Casualization

Veblen’s explanation for the downgrade in law-firm fashion standards comes, oddly, from his discussion of the corset. Veblen sees the corset as the exemplification of the underlying message of all upper-class women’s fashion: the woman’s inability—and by implication, lack of necessity—to perform any manual labor. Like high heels and long dresses, corsets visibly incapacitate the woman, leaving her incapable of performing any menial function. The uselessness of the woman thus redounds to the credit of her husband, who, by still further implication, must be capable of providing so abundantly that she need not bother. The most important point about the corset particularly is that it could only serve its purpose when it was of limited availability. As Veblen writes, “The corset was, until within a generation or two, nearly indispensable to a socially blameless standing for all women…[t]his rule held so long as there still was no large class of people wealthy enough to be above the imputation of any necessity for manual labor…But now there has grown up a large enough leisure class…[so that] the corset has therefore in large measure fallen into disuse.” In other words, once the leisure class grows large enough, the need to distinguish oneself by proving one’s idleness slackens.

Law Firms and Corsets

Such is the case with modern law firms. As the number of lawyers and law firms expands, the fancy dress becomes less exclusive and thus less essential to the firm’s image. The clothing loses its edge as a manifestation of wasteful dominance, and what remains is something hot and uncomfortable. It is therefore no surprise that the first article to be jettisoned in the movement toward casualness is the one that men find most uncomfortable: the tie. Veblen makes this point in the context of his era’s disappearance of powdered wigs and gold lace: “There has been a tendency perceptible, in the development of men’s dress especially, to discontinue…symbols of leisure which must have been irksome.” The suit and tie are just such “supererogatory symbols of leisure” to law firms today. Their exclusivity has waned, and thus so has their vitality.

The Old Rules Still Apply: Casual Dress ≠ Cheap Dress

New Clothes, New Purposes

Nevertheless, as FindLaw? 's article “Business Casual Attire for Lawyers” demonstrates, law firms’ new, casual dress codes still attempt to project the image of upper-class dominance. Veblen asserts that once upper-class clothing becomes casual, its goal transforms from publicizing wealth to transmitting fainter signals to those who can perceive the “subtler signs of expenditure.” The ultimate result of this shift is that “‘loud’ dress becomes offensive to people of taste, as evincing an undue desire to reach and impress the untrained sensibilities of the vulgar.” It is therefore no surprise that FindLaw? specifically instructs lawyers to stick to “conservative,” i.e. dark and muted, colors. Women receive the additional admonishment that large and flashy jewelry is to be avoided. Once the legal community has toned down its garb, displaying any luxurious flair becomes try-hard and déclassé.

New Clothes, Old Purposes

Most importantly, “casual” dress does not mean “cheap.” As Veblen asserts, cheapness is always anathema to the upper-class, for “we find things beautiful, as well as serviceable, somewhat in proportion as they are costly.” As the FindLaw? article notes, casual dress is no excuse to skimp: “Polos are the safe choice” for short-sleeve menswear, and clothing should still be “tailored” to fit nicely. Casual clothing thus loses none of its exclusivity or conspicuous wastefulness; it just mutes its message to target a narrower audience. Members of the upper-class are no longer in competition with society at large; they are in competition with each other. It is this subtler competition that now plays out in law firms, as Veblen predicted it ultimately must.

-- By FarayiMafoti - 17 Apr 2010