Sacramental Clothing
What our clothing reveals
Clothing exists as a sacramental to recall our innate dignity; it is symbolic of what is unique, singular, and hidden within each of us. Its introduction at the fall of man instructs us that we have not lost that dignity in being made in the image of God which shone forth unobstructed in the garden. Fashion, as a vehicle of communion between persons, is unique among the arts in that it has a practical use, but also in that it is communication in the third degree - when choosing what to wear we are communicating both our own message, and the intention of the designer.
As John Paul II writes in his Theology of the Body Appendix “The Ethos of the Body in Art and Media,” it is “precisely because of his body and his sex (masculinity/femininity), the truth about man, the truth about what is particularly personal and interior in him, creates precise limits [within the arts] that one must not overstep.” Fashion, though fundamentally practical, is also an art that communicates something about the person in his or her ontological reality, as well as making an aesthetic, cultural and contextual statement. John Paul II notes that “the human body is a perennial object of culture in the widest sense of the term.” There are, therefore, ethical implications of the art of fashion that affect the strength of our social fabric. The way we currently relate to our clothing is improper, and is a cause of our social anxiety, of our poor relationship between the sexes, of our inability to distinguish work and leisure, and of our inability appreciate what is objectively beautiful. Clothing affects our personhood. This, in turn affects our ability to form genuine relationships.
Clothing is the first material result of the fall. The shame of nakedness that we experience is a signal of the innate need for intimacy with our own bodies. We must be desensitized to this shame in order to allow for the amount of nakedness that is currently pushed and applauded in the culture at large. “When a culture shows an explicit tendency to cover the nakedness of the human body, it certainly does not do so for only climatic reasons, but also in the relation to the process of the growth of man’s personal sensibility. The anonymous nakedness of the man-object contrasts with… an authentically human culture of morality…. The process of sharpening human sensibility is certainly a factor and fruit of culture.” The tendency to cover the nakedness of the human body reveals the universal experience of nakedness rendering us both object and anonymous. A culture of authentic human relationships and morality is sensitive to the human need for intimacy with our own bodies. This need is not legalistic but ontological, in that the body reveals to some degree what is hidden about each person and what is able to be given as gift, that is, our own masculinity and femininity. But our own culture does not tend toward clothing the nakedness of the human body, but toward revealing it, showing a lack of sensitivity towards personhood and a preference for anonymity.
What is the cause of such rampant desensitization? Perhaps it is no coincidence that fashion diversified and cheapened in the extreme when film and photography were able to proliferate images of the human body, reproduced, anonymous, pornified. The human body, as the “perennial object of culture,” must always treated with reverence. That our bodies reveal ourselves places a high standard on the intention of an artist who works intimately with the body as his subject. Art, including fashion, must always aim to sublimate and transcend the human body, in order not to objectify and degrade. Photography is particularly fraught with this temptation, as the artist has the technology to replicate the image of a living person. In a picture, unlike in a sculpture or painting, the person is captured and displayed in both his objectivity (his body), but also his subjectivity (his personhood). John Paul II is insistent in his treatment of the body in art that it is never the body that renders a work of art obscene, but always the “quality” or intention of the representation. He writes, “There are works of art whose subject is the human body in its nakedness, the contemplation of which allows one to concentrate in some way on the whole truth of man, on the dignity and beauty--even 'suprasensual' beauty--of his masculinity and femininity. ... In contact with such works, we do not feel pushed by their content toward [lust]...in some way we learn the spousal meaning of the body." Perhaps it is fashion’s practical and reproducible aspects, along with its close ties with photography, that make it an area of particularly egregious abuse of the human body. After all, persons are used, whether live models or photographs, in order to show the art and sell a commodity, but they usually not even the artist themselves, as in the performing arts. Images and film of the body have become cheap… we have become numb to nudity and to the degrading intentions of artists. We have all bought in to looking like objects.
Therefore, when choosing what to wear , we must remember that as body-soul composites, we are able to intuit the intention of the designer in the fashion, and that our own intentions in our sartorial choices are legible to those around us. The ideal and standard for the treatment of the human body by fashion is as it is for all of the arts, sublimation and reverence. This is a high bar when choosing the clothes that we wear in all manner of practical settings. Clothing is one of the needs of the body, and without the needs of the body fulfilled, as a body-soul composite, man is unable to address the needs of his soul. As a priest chooses his vestments within the appropriate rubrics, we too, ought to dress with care. Our appearance and the message it sends reverberates in the metaphysical realm.
What are we communicating to each other in a culture with zero fashion norms and a schizophrenic identity, where our clothes are made by underpaid laborers with fake materials, designed by those who deny the existence of our eternal souls? Are we shining forth or reduced to an anonymous display of brokenness?
My next post I’ll explore one of the social ills caused by our improper relationship with clothing:
-pervasive social anxiety caused by lack of etiquette and norms
-poor relationship between the sexes
-inability to distinguish work and leisure
-inability appreciate what is objectively beautiful
In the future I will also discuss how we can cultivate a sharper human sensibility and good taste!!
All quotations taken from John Paul II’s Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body. This edition can be purchased here: https://www.amazon.com/Man-Woman-He-Created-Them/dp/0819874213/ref=pd_lpo_sccl_1/142-0176893-2686613?pd_rd_w=XnqF9&content-id=amzn1.sym.4c8c52db-06f8-4e42-8e56-912796f2ea6c&pf_rd_p=4c8c52db-06f8-4e42-8e56-912796f2ea6c&pf_rd_r=0PYGB44W49MRHME3XDDG&pd_rd_wg=3WHOb&pd_rd_r=51b04959-e9a4-4324-b6fe-dabb17506cdb&pd_rd_i=0819874213&psc=1
Love this. I love historical fashion and how much can be said with few words (or few fashion choices) in a highly shared culture. We do not live in a highly shared culture. We're very far from Age of Innocence by Edith Wharton, 1870s New York high society, where a man can say one sentence and his fiancee can correctly understand paragraphs from that sentence because they have such a highly shared culture. Because of this lack, today we communicate most widely by the lowest common denominator.
I've been thinking about "pervasive social anxiety caused by lack of etiquette and norms," as I just finish reading Emily Post's Etiquette (1922). There are rules of manners (and dress) in society still, but today we pretend there are no rules and young people get bewildered and feel "judged" when they break an unspoken rule and produce an unexpected reaction in others. I used to have a poster of Brene Brown's quote, "Clear is kind, unclear is unkind" at work next to quotes from popes and saints. When expectations or rules are clear, there is less anxiety about what to do. We're freer within limits than without limits. Without strong banks, a clear flowing river becomes a murky puddle. Many people are living murky puddle lives. And dressing like it!
Thanks Kate, I love the reference to Edith Wharton- it reminds me of so many of the conversations in Dostoyevsky as well. I read Emily Post as a girl and was fascinated by the idea that there is a proper way to act in every setting. I will definitely be addressing this aspect of our clothes in the future!