The European aristocracy in the 18th century dressed lavishly – in wigs, fine silk, and high heels. Fashion was synonymous with power, regardless of gender. 

In the early decades of the 19th century, something seemed to change: women of the new ruling class, the bourgeoisie, still dressed fashionably, but their husbands toned down their appearance, and successively made the discrete three-piece suit their uniform. 

This suit soon became the ultimate sign of masculinity, regardless of social class, for at least one hundred years.

This radical shift in sartorial practices has been defined as “the great male renunciation” by psychologist J. C. Flügel; men “renounced” fashion, which instead became a completely female activity.

Flügel found this shift strange, as it goes against nature. 

In the animal kingdom, it is the male animal that is most the most lavish, but in humans, women care the most about their appearance. 

The reason for men’s renunciation, he found, was that to dress too conspicuously was affiliated with the Ancien Régime, and thus a dangerous aesthetic choice in politically fraught times.

Better then to distance oneself from the trappings of the old world, most men seemed to think. 

This development was enhanced the fact that a new social class now dominated society: The bourgeoisie had taken over control from the aristocracy. 

But why did women continue to wear fashion, when men stopped? 

One reason can be that they were not part of the public sphere the same way that men were, meaning that they were less exposed to the new organization of power. 

Another can be found in the difference between genders – the 19th century family was cantered around a nuclear family (rather than, as before, being s lather, multigenerational unit). 

The man and the woman in this couple complemented one another, as they were considered a unit. 

A third could be that even before the renunciation, men had cared less about fashion than women.

Yet another reason, connected to this last proposal of men being less associated with fashion, was suggested by doctor Esther Vilar. In her book The Manipulated Man, she stated that in modern society, men have been manipulated by women. 

This is why men fight in wars and work in more dangerous professions. And when a couple has children, the father sacrifices himself emotionally by working, so that the mother can stay home with their child. 

In the matriarchy that (according to Vilar) is Western civilisation, women have made men their servants, and thus men are dressed in the garments of servants, while women are (like the old aristocrats) dressed like the masters.  

Men’s dress needs to be practical, in dark colours and with big pockets, so that they can service women, is Vilar’s radical interpretation of men’s fashion.

Nevertheless, many men have famously experimented with fashion that questions the boundaries between genders. 

David Bowie’s androgynous appearance, as well as Timothée Chalamet’s gender-blurring style, together with Harry Styles effeminate fashion statements, have all been lauded as ground-breaking and a breath of fresh air in the world of boring menswear. 

And yes, often these looks are interesting, and can also be said to manifest new ideas of masculinity in a postmodern world. 

But context matter. Today, traditional masculinity is simply not fashionable.

To do as Chalamet and Styles is to act strategically; they celebrate femininity while renouncing traditional masculinity in a time when this behaviour is the major cultural trend. Their appearance is thus neither rebellious nor avantgarde. 

However, as many scholars have noted, ideas tend to move dialectically, following the movements of a pendulum in motion. If what we are now experiencing is one extreme of the scale, chances are that we soon will experience the opposite. 

Hopefully, the movements of the pendulum sooner or later will slow down, and we will find ourselves somewhere in the middle, where both men and women can wear what they want, regardless of ideology. 

Another aspect is that perhaps one should not read too much into the surface of things. Sometimes, a pair of pants are just a pair of pants, and a dress is no more than a dress. Thinking that fashion is a lens through which all of society can be explained, is to think too highly of what is ultimately no more than a set of clothes. 

/Philip Warkander