This is one of my favorite and insightful passages by Guy Debord:
23
The root of the spectacle is that oldest of all social specializations, the specialization of power. The spectacle plays the specialized role of speaking in the name of all the other activities. It is hierarchical society’s ambassador to itself, delivering its official messages at a court where no one else is allowed to speak. The most modern aspect of the spectacle is thus also the most archaic.
Of course what Will is ranting about is the “absurdity” of the elites masquerading as commoners wearing blue jeans as a signifier of our wonderful egalitarian society, when nobody, especially himself, really believes it. And, as the veneers of the great society of spectacle continue to delaminate like cheap plywood in the rain, people like Will gaze wistfully back to a 19th century Dickens world where instead, the poor imitated the rich, wearing filthy collars and threadbare top hats, and not the reverse – thus broadcasting their class. Nonetheless though, like Debord says the grand illusion of modernity is in fact archaic at its root – some of which we are now beginning to witness. And it ain’t very pretty.

Posted by: anna missed | Apr 16 2009 10:31 utc | 4

Too funny.
Nothing useful to say, as usual.
[I think he should go after shorts]
I pretty much got over religion when the minister in the church I attended would rant and rave about people putting their glasses on top of their heads and “jungle music”.

Posted by: beq | Apr 16 2009 11:23 utc | 6

Picture George in jeans.
exactly, why wasn’t he wasn’t writing this shit when george was getting photographed on the ranch?
JD is right, we americans look like slobs! i do anyway. the wapo is going down the tubes, men should look like astaire and women like grace kelly? jesus get a grip.

Posted by: annie | Apr 16 2009 14:50 utc | 8

My reaction: “Who the **** is Fred Astaire?”

Posted by: Cloud | Apr 16 2009 15:14 utc | 10

what amuses me is that he thinks no “Americans” are actually working-class and do manual labour. I know there’s been a lot of corporate flight — why can’t we call corporations that decamp in the night to cheaper labour pools “wetbacks”, since they deserve an opprobrious nickname more than the members of the cheap labour pools they exploit? — but there are still quite a few people doing honest physical work.
of course the true new proletariat is wearing polyester uniform pants and a uniform top with the logo of some transnat fast-food or overstock-dumping outlet embroidered on the pocket.

Posted by: DeAnander | Apr 16 2009 16:32 utc | 12

@JDsg #3: “Koreans dress extremely well, even on occasions when one might not expect them to. In short, Koreans make most Americans look like slobs.”
It’s true that the majority of 한국 사람 are obsessed with style at the expense of substance. One could argue that this has had a stimulating effect on the Korean economy, creating a demand for man-makeup and man-panties. It has been my experience, however, that this has just created a nation of competitive conspicuous consumerism that has even surpassed American standards. This might have had the effect of making some 외국인 feel ashamed of their “slovenliness”, but I am not one of them. Yes, I was told that I looked “like a beggar” for getting a second season out of last year’s clothes. It didn’t bother me.
The point of all of this banter is to reinforce two a priori ideas that I reject: viz. that all Americans work in an air-conditioned environment and that not visibly spending as much as the Joneses makes you a bad person. I, on the other hand, fail to see how a disposition towards dandyism is a laudable trait. I see it as another symptom of that same disease which caused people to flock into McMansions they couldn’t afford or to drive spikes into the coffin of the environment by showing off their unnecessarily gigantic SUVs and Hummers.
I wish this were a simple issue of wacky “conservatives” vs. “liberals”, but the only thing that is putting Mr. Will over-the-top here is that he is giving voice to an embarrassing attitude that most people want to internalize as quietly and tacitly as possible.

Posted by: Monolycus | Apr 16 2009 17:08 utc | 14

Anna M: if you like Debord, you might enjoy Thomas de Zengotita’s book “Mediated”. He’s a witty writer and talks about the specific ways we live “substitute” lives, virtual rather than real. Of course, he lacks the Marxist/French elan of Debord.

Posted by: senecal | Apr 16 2009 17:59 utc | 16

living near a very large military base here in Germany I can tell you that it so easy to spot americans, they are wearing shorts and flip flops when it is 40 degreees fahrenheit and a baseball cap. or they are older people wearing slacks and trainers. more than anything else they are wearing synthetic fabrics.
germans on the other hand are mostly well dressed but are prone to wear sandals with white socks.
I do think we could spend a bit more time getting dressed. what some might call individualism and comfort is really nothing more than sloppiness and laziness. Usually women are better dressed than men and there must be a reason for that.
it really does make a difference to a lot of people. why shouldn’t it? who would buy a car that is dirty or all scratched up? would you want to move into a house that is ugly? so why should it be different when it comes to other humans? are you more likely to approach a clean well dressed person or one with with a dirty sweater, greasy hair, and pajama pants?
the other points are all valid and G Will pontificating is really rich but then even a stopped clock is right twice a day. and obviously he was not allowed to say anything about the boy king then or now. it is not allowed.

Posted by: dan of steele | Apr 16 2009 18:33 utc | 18

I do have one standard: not appearing in public wearing a jogging/training suit unless you are out jogging or on your way to do some other sporting activity.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Apr 16 2009 21:06 utc | 20

The Daily Mail on Grace Kelly’s wardrobe:

… for her honeymoon she took seven evening gowns, six cocktail dresses, 16 day costumes, and numerous suits, coats, furs and hundreds of hats, bags and pairs of shoes, all of which she had packed herself, as well as her black poodle…
Her ivory wedding dress was made by another Oscar-winning Hollywood costumier, Helen Rose of MGM, and was made up of 300 yards of antique Brussels rose-point lace, 25 yards of heavy taffeta, 100 yards of silk net, 25 yards of silk taffeta, with a three-foot train and tulle veil, all studded with pearls…

Posted by: small coke | Apr 16 2009 23:28 utc | 22

I became self-employed so that I could write my own rules, and do my own thing. The more casual I am, the more relaxed I feel. Put me in a suit or slacks and shirt, and I will charge you accordingly.

Posted by: Benny Mitchell | Apr 17 2009 0:25 utc | 24

I’ve often wondered, in the last few years whenever I saw his byline – again – how this bloke George Will could continue to sell commentary through any medium. In the few times I have bothered to read him, half-hoping to see something interesting or new or factual just because after all y’know, he is George Will, I have remarked to myself either that 1) there’s no content here, or 2) he’s a lyin sackoshit. (#2 has become uncomfortably common among LOTS of journalists now.)
Now I have a better idea of how he gets away with it. His very name gets him featured in MOA, (and other blogs surely), even if it is for almost unanimous mockery. All publicity is good publicity isn’t it? There seems to be a mood of surprise that such a big name guy can be such a fukkup, but on reflection, that shouldn’t be surprising, but more of a depressing display of how minds/attitudes of the masses can be so easily herded. IOW, Will’s publication has a purpose, and it doesn’t have much to do with credibility. It works anyway.
I believe the best way to deal with this large gang of liers is to totally ignore them. Don’t listen, don’t read, don’t acknowledge. In any discussion, treat said lier as irrelevant, a waste of your valuable time.
So saith pot to kettle.

Posted by: rapt | Apr 17 2009 17:54 utc | 26

Few things seemed to Newland Archer more awful than an offense against “taste,” that far-off divinity of whom “form” was the mere visible representative and viceregent.
— Edith Wharton, “Age on Innocence”
Grace Kelly in jeans – http://tinyurl.com/clnox5
Grace Kelly’s grandson in jeans and as Astaire.

Posted by: small coke | Apr 17 2009 22:45 utc | 28