Master Franklin and his Madam Dogood have of late spoken out against a most terrible crime of character, so they say. What malevolent atrocity have they in mind? Perhaps child-murder, maß-rape, genocide, or some siege? Oh, no, no, none of those will do, for the greatest evil available to commit is; dreßing to one's social station, and worse yet, having pride in doing so.
On the Eleventh of June, 1722, did they make the claim that any apparel ovwer fourteen pence might as well be considered to be a crime not of Man's natural state of being. This, they insist an act of willful pride instead of the pride which justifiably arises from succeß, and of the succeß in itself. Indeed, all pride is seemingly denounced, but we would here give Master Franklin the benefit of the doubt that he would not seek to demonise instinctual pride, as this must be of man's natural state! The supposition primarily is that the pride of apparel is in the main a way for 'airy mortals to [make] themselves considerable but by gorgeous apparel'.
Allow me to pose a more responsible counter to Master Franklin's conceited view of the subject, viewed as it is through his tiny, individualistic spectacles. The 'Pride of Apparel' ought to be superseded by the Duty to Dreß Rightly and Well. It is an obligation of the social contract that, contrary even to the laws of economic systems, one will invest materially into the collective aesthetic wonder of society, much as the social contract maintains without spelling, the obligation to bathe as often as we might, for the benefit of the aesthetic and ambient equivalent of of smell in society. 'He who much bathes and his breeches cleans, is provenly boastful, prideful, and quite obscene', Master Franklin and Madam Dogood ought to tell the world next! Seeing this is the case, does it not make sense then to, just as society demands of olfactory standards, demand the same of visual standards, too? One should dreß in accordance with their activity and as best (nicely) their station permits.
The bourgeoisie has ruined the noble obligation, and all we now poßeß left is the unspoken social obligation, which as far back as Franklin and the French Revolution the bourgeoisie was attempting to abolish. Of course, the sans-culotte patriotic propaganda movemnt began as a much more innocent project to remove the social shame of dreßing as fit for a poor person, yet itself, under bourgeois direction, degenerated into middle-claß hedonistic, individualist jealousy, and then hatred, for those who have nice things. The sad result was, the aristocrats, who invested in actual, material culture, were robbed and then murdered. Culture is a universal score collectively contributed to by and applied over all members of society. The bourgeoisie pulled most of that funding from culture, and redirected it into the financial black-hole of investment into capital, always and forever, in offering to the (il)logic of capitalism. Now we can enjoy ugly, but cheap architecture, raggedy, but abundant clothing, unhealthy, but fast and sweet food, uninspired, but brand new music, empty, but empowering sex, unmeaningful, but interpretive art, milked-out, but constant films: and on we could go. Society has become a dirty and cheap imitation of high culture in Europes of yore. The most exploitative ('efficient') economic system, paired with the most supposedly 'free' form of society, is still incapable of creating that which came before created consistently with 'leßer' instruments; exquisite pieces with invaluable, timeleß quality. The bourgeoisie may lack any of the aristocracy's sense of pride, but they do corner the market in sheer arrogance, and no claß in history has been so destructive, in this regard, to society.
Observing, as we have, these harmful tendencies arising from Master Franklin's and Madam Dogood's preposterous prancing and ranting against the socially contractual Duty to Dreß Rightly and Well, does it not then behoove us to abandon this dire bourgeois trajectory, and as individuals pledge ourselves to the maintenance of the social obligation, for the public good? What am I saying, citizens: am I saying 'long live the King!', or am I really saying 'do not smash the King's crown merely for its make of gold'? Are we bourgeois culture-bandits, anarcho-vandalisers; or are we for the good of mankind, to make every worker an aristocrat, in a society worthy of a complete and satisfied life? If no one will stand for the majestic things in life, sacrificing a little to secure them, then life shall degenerate into a ghetto, on all planes of being.
Comments