Dandyism Revisited

I have heard told that when Rudyard Kipling finished a manuscript he would put it on a shelf for a year and then return to it fresh to complete his editing. There is something to be said for immersing yourself in a subject and then returning to it years later with a fresh perspective and new knowledge to bring to the table. With this in mind I have decided to return to a topic that once filled my thoughts.

Whenever I am asked to define a dandy I choose to avoid the mainstream definition of "a man who places particular importance upon physical appearance, refined language, and leisurely hobbies, pursued with the appearance of nonchalance in a cult of Self." Rather I prefer a little story.

Once upon a time the vast majority of the population were trash. Really. Probably well-over 90% of the population were filthy, illiterate, and generally ignorant. On top of this, they lacked any real concept of self. The minority in this population were the nobles. They had power, strength, beauty, refinement, knowledge, and a greater sense of personal identity. Thanks to the Black Death, the rediscovery of Aristotelian philosophy, which led to the Renaissance, and rise of Capitalism all this began to change. Gradually the common man was in a position challenge the nobles. Not just politically, but also to become better men -- to become Gentlemen.

Today we still use the word "noble" to describe the best of humanity and the word "vulgar", which means common, denotes crass, dirty, and low. All those quality assigned to dandies in the above definition are really just a part of this greater pursuit of nobility and to rise above the vulgar. It is the quest to become the self-made man.

Charles Baudelaire noted that democracy is the enemy of dandyism. I understand that more now than ever. The dandy wishes to demonstrate that he is just as good as the people at the top. In this he recognises the social hierarchy. In a merit-based society the cream rises to the top and those who wish to challenge the elite to either join or topple them must prove their merit.

A democratic Republic also recognises the hierarchy; however a Social Democracy does not. In such a state there is the claim that all men are equal and when they are not they must be made equal through "social justice" enforced through the state. Under a democracy the individual is made subservient to the will of the masses. In our modern age, the masses are routinely propagandised through education and media to vote according to the will of the elite and powerful interest groups. Where then does that leave the dandy and his cult of the self?

Just as the original dandies challenged the authority of the nobility by proving themselves to be their equals, so too do modern dandies challenge the premise of social equality and the modern emphasis on the common man. However, the common man has a voice and the vulgar is the norm across the social spectrum. This makes the modern dandy seem all the more eccentric, pretentious, and irrelevant than ever before. And yet it is the dandy's nature to stand defiant.

Over the past few years I have been studying material on the modern Men's Movement. For those not in the know, this began in the 90's with Pick-up artists teaching other men how to get girls. This got men talking about their experiences with women, including the common sad tale of the nice guy getting his heart-broken. The outcome of all this was the realisation that women are attracted to men, real men, but thanks to feminism most modern men are emasculated. So to attract women a man must be a man. The problem is that many men do not know how. So now we have a Men's Movement – sort of a backlash against decades of feminism – to teach men how to reclaim their manhood.

As I was watching one such lecture given by Owen Cook (aka Tyler Durden) called The Blueprint Decoded, it occurred to me that what he was talking about was dandyism. Not specifically of course, but many of the attitudes that he was teaching his audience how to achieve are those associated with dandies.

Dandyism is not commonly associated with masculinity these days. A man who is overly concerned about his appearance is seen as feminine. Apparently, real men burp, fart, don't wash, and wear raggedy clothes. In other words, a real man is vulgar. Men who are not so inclined are seen as gay or metro-sexual, in other words, straight gay men. Dandyism is actually quite the opposite of all three of these things.

The man credited as the founder of British Dandyism is Beau Brummel. His greatest claim to fame was the men's suit. Perfection achieved and thus men's fashion has not changed in this regard since 1800. I read somewhere that his motivation for this creation was masculinity.

Those unfamiliar with dandyism often equate dandies with fops. These are two different creatures. A fop is fabulous, over-the-top, and camp. The pre-Brummel fashions of men in powdered wigs, painted faces, and stockings are associated with foppery. The dandy on the other hand is elegant. He is sleek, streamlined, and simple. This allows his attitude to speak through his clothes rather than corrupt it.

Another word for a dandy is a "gallant". In my personal studies of masculinity and female attraction I long ago discovered that women want a good, strong man. Unfortunately most men are either good (wussies) or strong (assholes). About a year ago I discovered the concepts of chivalry and gallantry. Women all say that they want a knight in shining armour. Well, they do.

Chivalry means being kind socially but strong in battle. It is moral code for managing strength. Strength can be defined as, "a predominately masculine quality characterised by the ability and drive to exert one's will over objects, over nature, over other men, and over oneself." This can be used either positively in the creation and defence of values, or negatively in the destruction of values. To be chivalrous is to be the good/strong man.

Gallantry is courage, but more importantly it is nonchalant courage. To be gallant is to be possessed of an easy going nature. As Owen Cook says, "walking through the world with ease". It is born of an absolute faith in oneself and an acceptance of reality so as not to live in a state of fear, worry, or defensiveness. Hard times and challenges are met with self-confidence and wit. Not unlike James Bond.

Another aspect of the dandy is manners and respect. The euphemism "I'm going to teach him some manners" means "I going to fight him". All manners are born of the threat of force. In our modern society I am reminded of the scene in the film Fight Club where the men go out to start a fight and encounter men completely unprepared for it. They ignore the attack, or try to reason, or run away. This is because we are conditioned not to fight and to avoid conflict at all cost. As a result we fall easy prey to those in our society more prone to violence. We look to the state to defend and protect us.

The dandies of the Nineteenth century were far more prepared for violence than we are today. The practice of carrying of a cane was more than a fashion. The cane was used for protection and the threat of force maintained the social order and the social hierarchy. Therefore manners were of the utmost importance as was mutual respect. The alternative could have been a sound thrashing.

Dandyism is about far more than fashionistas, lay-abouts, or peacocks. Being a dandy is not motivated by ego or some need to impress. It is about being centred in ones self; being able to appreciate material as well as immaterial values; and it is about personal growth towards a gentlemanly ideal of chivalry and gallantry. However its branches spread wider than that and its roots go deeper.

There used to be a group of people called critics. Their job was to analyse works of art and uncover the themes and ideas being expressed. They went deeper to articulate those things that people could perceive but not really see. Critics gave the art meaning and relevance. Unfortunately critics have succumbed to intellectual elitism reserved for the academic establishment while others became thumbs-up or thumbs-down purveyors of opinion. We prefer experiencing our art for ourselves without someone trying to tell us what it means.

The same holds true of modern Dandyism, or Goth, or Steampunk, or any other sort of Romantic lifestyle or cultural consumption. People want to play and enjoy without someone telling them what the deeper meanings are. I have no problem with that. What does bother me is when people deny the deeper meanings even exist and they certainly have no time for critics like myself.

I understand them though. When you codify something; you define it. When you define it; you create boundaries, rules, laws, expectations of behaviour, and beliefs. This forces some people to have to choose between enjoying the cultural commodities for its own sake and accepting an ideology.

There are those who love the culture of dandyism and perhaps have become experts in the field, but dandyism is more than clothes. Charles Baudelaire called it a religion. I see it as part of the greater Romantic philosophy which includes things like Goth and Steampunk.

Philosophy consists of five connected branches: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics. Being any sort of Romantic requires you to swallow the whole pill and not a bit from here or there. It's all connected. Achieving true dandyism requires understanding the whole and complete faith.

Perhaps this is why I have not written much on dandyism over the years. I have instead been concentrating on all those little tendrils connected philosophically to it. The result is that I have a better understanding and feeling for being a dandy than ever I have before.

I'll conclude with Charles Baudelaire's final passage from his great essay on Dandyism. Gentlemen, this is your goal.

For here we surely have that ease of bearing, that sureness of manner, that simplicity in the habit of command, that way of wearing a frock-coat or controlling a horse, that calmness revealing strength in every circumstance, that convince us, when our eye does pick out one of those privileged beings, in whom the attractive and the formidable mingle so mysteriously: 'There goes a rich man perhaps, but quite certainly an unemployed Hercules.'

The specific beauty of the dandy consists particularly in that cold exterior resulting from the unshakeable determination to remain unmoved; one is reminded of a latent fire, whose existence is merely suspected, and which, if it wanted to, but it does not, could burst forth in all its brightness.