I want to analyze a famous work by Sander. In this work, there are three young farmers walking on their way to a dance in the evening. In terms of the wealth of descriptive information it contains, the picture is comparable to a chapter written by master Zola. However, I just want to analyze one point: their clothing.
The time is 1914. The three young men belonged at best to the second generation in the European countryside who wore such clothes. Twenty or thirty years before this, such clothes were not affordable for farmers. Among young people today, at least in Western Europe, dark formal clothes are rarely worn in the villages. For most of the 20th century, however, most farmers and workers wore three-piece suits on Sundays and official festivals such as wedding feasts.
Let us first analyze the external characteristics, or more precisely, the characteristics that appear when the farmers in the village wear such clothes. To illustrate it, let's first look at the second photo, "The Band in the Village." Now, let's do an experiment: Cover the faces of the band members with a piece of paper and see only the clothed bodies. No matter how rich your imagination, you can't imagine these bodies as those of middle-class or leadership figures. These bodies may belong to workers, not farmers. So why is their class hierarchy so obvious?
The reason is that their clothes deformed them. When wearing them, they look as if their anatomy is defective. The impressions of these musicians are: uncoordinated, with looped legs, round chests, and twisted or irregular bodies. The violinist on the right looks the strangest. Their "deformities" are not extreme, just abnormal enough to destroy their physical beauty. The bodies we see are crude, clumsy, savage, and hopelessly indecent.
Now, let's do an experiment from the other side. The body of the band members is covered, and only the face is exposed. These are redneck faces, and no one would think these were lawyers or general managers. Just by looking at these faces, we can imagine what their bodies should look like. Yet what we think is quite different from what we have just seen. In our imaginations, they look just as their parents remembered them when they were away. We restored their original appearance and original dignity.
To illustrate this point more clearly, let us look at another photograph—Four Protestant Missionaries, taken in 1931. Here, the suit maintains the wearer's identity and innate majesty, and it does enhance the wearer's appearance. Clothes convey the same message as the face or the body. Clothing, resume, social class and function all match in this photo.
Now, let's look back at the three who are going to dance. Their hands seem too big, their bodies too thin, their feet too short, and they hold their canes as clumsily as a bull. We can experiment with face coverings and get the same result as the band's one.
What does this mean? Does it just mean that the farmer doesn't buy clothes and doesn't know how to dress? No, the point is that this photo is a vivid example of what Gramsci called class hegemony. Let's take a closer look at the inconsistency.
Most farmers, if not malnourished, are strong and well-developed. The farmer's body has a peculiar labor dignity: this dignity comes from the coordination of functions, a total freedom in hard work. The suit only appeared in Europe in the last 30 years of the 19th century. It was a kind of clothing worn by the exclusive leadership, and it was the first clothing designed for the purely seated powerful leadership. Suits symbolize the power of the executive and parliament. This garment is designed for movements done in activities such as speaking or calculating. This kind of clothing is not suitable for large-scale movements, and is often messed up and ugly because of the inappropriate movements of the wearer. At the beginning of the 20th century, especially after the First World War, suits were gradually mass-produced in response to popular demand in urban and rural areas.
The contradiction is obvious. We can notice how the traditional farmer's work clothes or formal clothes respect the physical characteristics of the wearer. These garments are usually loose and tight where they should be so that they can move more freely. They are the exact opposite of suits: suits are designed for the ideal body shape of those who sit still.
However, no one forced the farmer to buy a suit, and the three men who were going to dance were obviously proud of the suits they were wearing. They were so excited! That's why the suit can be a classic, easily recognizable symbol of class hegemony.
In the face of the infinity of the world, the knowledge in our short life is negligible.
I want to analyze a famous work by Sander. In this work, there are three young farmers walking on their way to a dance in the evening. In terms of the wealth of descriptive information it contains, the picture is comparable to a chapter written by master Zola. However, I just want to analyze one point: their clothing.
The time is 1914. The three young men belonged at best to the second generation in the European countryside who wore such clothes. Twenty or thirty years before this, such clothes were not affordable for farmers. Among young people today, at least in Western Europe, dark formal clothes are rarely worn in the villages. For most of the 20th century, however, most farmers and workers wore three-piece suits on Sundays and official festivals such as wedding feasts.
Let us first analyze the external characteristics, or more precisely, the characteristics that appear when the farmers in the village wear such clothes. To illustrate it, let's first look at the second photo, "The Band in the Village." Now, let's do an experiment: Cover the faces of the band members with a piece of paper and see only the clothed bodies. No matter how rich your imagination, you can't imagine these bodies as those of middle-class or leadership figures. These bodies may belong to workers, not farmers. So why is their class hierarchy so obvious?
The reason is that their clothes deformed them. When wearing them, they look as if their anatomy is defective. The impressions of these musicians are: uncoordinated, with looped legs, round chests, and twisted or irregular bodies. The violinist on the right looks the strangest. Their "deformities" are not extreme, just abnormal enough to destroy their physical beauty. The bodies we see are crude, clumsy, savage, and hopelessly indecent.
Now, let's do an experiment from the other side. The body of the band members is covered, and only the face is exposed. These are redneck faces, and no one would think these were lawyers or general managers. Just by looking at these faces, we can imagine what their bodies should look like. Yet what we think is quite different from what we have just seen. In our imaginations, they look just as their parents remembered them when they were away. We restored their original appearance and original dignity.
To illustrate this point more clearly, let us look at another photograph—Four Protestant Missionaries, taken in 1931. Here, the suit maintains the wearer's identity and innate majesty, and it does enhance the wearer's appearance. Clothes convey the same message as the face or the body. Clothing, resume, social class and function all match in this photo.
Now, let's look back at the three who are going to dance. Their hands seem too big, their bodies too thin, their feet too short, and they hold their canes as clumsily as a bull. We can experiment with face coverings and get the same result as the band's one.
What does this mean? Does it just mean that the farmer doesn't buy clothes and doesn't know how to dress? No, the point is that this photo is a vivid example of what Gramsci called class hegemony. Let's take a closer look at the inconsistency.
Most farmers, if not malnourished, are strong and well-developed. The farmer's body has a peculiar labor dignity: this dignity comes from the coordination of functions, a total freedom in hard work. The suit only appeared in Europe in the last 30 years of the 19th century. It was a kind of clothing worn by the exclusive leadership, and it was the first clothing designed for the purely seated powerful leadership. Suits symbolize the power of the executive and parliament. This garment is designed for movements done in activities such as speaking or calculating. This kind of clothing is not suitable for large-scale movements, and is often messed up and ugly because of the inappropriate movements of the wearer. At the beginning of the 20th century, especially after the First World War, suits were gradually mass-produced in response to popular demand in urban and rural areas.
The contradiction is obvious. We can notice how the traditional farmer's work clothes or formal clothes respect the physical characteristics of the wearer. These garments are usually loose and tight where they should be so that they can move more freely. They are the exact opposite of suits: suits are designed for the ideal body shape of those who sit still.
However, no one forced the farmer to buy a suit, and the three men who were going to dance were obviously proud of the suits they were wearing. They were so excited! That's why the suit can be a classic, easily recognizable symbol of class hegemony.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
In the face of the infinity of the world, the knowledge in our short life is negligible.
Subscribe to planet
Subscribe to planet
<100 subscribers
<100 subscribers
No activity yet