jacky..."A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" --how to reconcile with perceived value of internal consistency?

bj1111: I can't say for certain, since I'm not part of the Less Wrong community or the Rationalist movement, but I believe that people would typically say that they don't have that problem because they would say that the opinions or thoughts they vocalized in the past were wrong if they turned out to be clearly incorrect or conflicting with their base values in some way. The consistency doesn't have to be just making sure the future matches the past - it's about holding internally consistent views at the present and owning up to mistaken views you may have expressed previously.

Jacky, can a view be mistaken? The way I view something is mine and cannot be wrong. Now, later in life my view can change because my circumstance, knowledge, or my life changes so my view of that 'something' changes. But my previous view is not wrong, just different.

Una, how did you feel about Burbury 10 or 20 years ago?

deb: That's an interesting question. We don't live in a vacuum, so your views don't just affect you. If a view you hold negatively affects other people (probably in how it affects your interactions with them), is it wrong? Views we hold can also be factually wrong - at that point, I guess it's somewhat semantic on whether or not you believe that to be a wrong view.

Ok I'll admit that I probably overreactted to some of the sentiments on this thread. It's just that I'm a bit more than sensitive in light of other more judgemental threads.
Amy K, given that you wanted to block out the Hunter logo on a pair of boots, perhaps you are brand adverse?
One thing that hasn't been brought up is the huge popularity of Burberry in Asia. Living in Seattle with a significant Asian population, I see it a fair amount. That's my local association.

this conversation is getting way too meta.

For me, chains and quilting and pearls ala Chanel means 80s happy times. That aesthetic, and the brand, is still very evocative of coming into my own as far as fashion.

You know, I think this is a very good topic you've brought up. Is a pair of chanel ballet flats somehow subjectively better than any other type or brand of that same style of shoe? Probably not, but when you wear those shoes, you instantly conjure up images of coco chanel in her ropes of pearls, tweed jackets, etc. When I was married, I insisted on a big clear diamond-y gem, not because I loved it, but because I was pretty sure that any other type of ring wouldn't be recognized as a wedding ring.

The obvious twist is that not only do we all view different items differently based on our own experiences, but they may actually read differently depending on our audience. To use a recent example from YLF, karymk recently wore this amazing plaid blazer that everyone else called classic preppy. To me, red plaid=punk. Talk about total opposites. In a low income area, wearing designer brands may be viewed very differently than in a high income area. Same with certain garments, or even certain prints. Doc Martens boots are still popular footwear for both neo-nazi skinheads, and hip hop artists. I think that's the lesson to be learned here - we never can tell what lens anyone else is viewing our choices through. So while we may think our nice suit is proof we've really made it, someone else could think that if you were really successful, you could wear what you want! Which is a very long reply on my part leading me to say that we may as well just wear what we like and let everyone else deal with it, because even when it seems like a certain item sends a universal message, it probably doesn't.

Anna, so glad you came back.

Deb, 20 years ago I was broke and shopped at thrift stores exclusively. I don't think I would have picked up a Burberry anything had I found it on a rack. I have since become much more aware of and susceptible to fashion brands and trends, and only now am I even starting to sort out my own impulses and motives from what I actually loves that works for me. Hence this thread - why the Pavlovian response to certain plaid?

bj1111, lol!

I think foolish consistency differs from wise consistency - say, Kate Hepburn and her menswear uniform. Yes?

Thanks Una for starting this excellent discussion. I dont feel that i have a lot of the fashion background or tacit knowledge to personally identify many of the tribe markers based to some extent that i grew up somewhat tribeless. Now as i learn of the markers of DH's tribe and become more astute i work to understand if i want item brand xyz or if really want acceptance. And really, i am looking for the latter. After feeling very lonely for many years in a socio economic in between zone i would like to have friends. Not saying people necesarily like or not like you for what you wear but a certain commonality opens the way to get to know each other. Although even in commonalities there are often significant differences too. I feel like my horizon on thinking is somewhat smaller than id like right now so will be checking out more in the meta discussion info because it seems quite interesting as well. As an aside i have considered the one dress type challenges Anna linked as too... Apparently im just all over the board!

Ooh. I love a good meta-conversation!

To go back to your original question, Una -- why do I feel such positive associations toward one brand or item whereas the same brand or item might leave you cold (and vice versa) -- it's tempting but facile to say de gustibus non set disputantum. But it does rather get at the idea that while some of these associations are obviously broadly cultural (and then, breaking it down further, subcultural...we will share associations with our subculture, to a large degree) -- they are also deeply personal.

Maybe that's especially obvious where branding is not the issue. For lots of reasons having to do with my own various and overlapping subcultures, I'm pretty much immune to the lure of any particular fashion house. I am not proud of that or ashamed of it. I suspect if I had greater experience of some of the brands I might be totally over the moon about some of the stuff!

But...show me a pair of high quality soft leather pointy toed "Beatle" booties of any brand, and my wallet will be out of my non-branded handbag faster than you can say, "Which size, Madame?"

Why? Well....who knows? Is it because I danced to the Beatles as a wee toddling thing? (But I'm hardly alone in that.) Is it because they're a great expression of my style persona (one I subconsciously recognized before I even knew what a style persona was?)

Meanwhile...I also sang to the Sound of Music, and you can't get me into lederhosen. Although I do think Anna's leather harness is pretty cool.

Una, I think what you describe has a lot to do with age, knowledge, and wisdom. I assume you did not know what Burberry was 20 years ago nor the implications. Not in a negative way, but the history, the quality, the branding. Maybe the Burberry is just symbolic for other changes of views in your life. The Burberry is tactile, others may not be so are more difficult to know or understand.

I think Suz is on the same wavelength, in not really having any personal associations with said brands. No lure to any fashion house here, either. It's almost like we're lacking some essential fashion internal workings that other ladies are demonstrating!
But, like her, I have my buttons. Replace her Beatle boots with silver hardware for me and I am ready to jump. But, it can be any hardware from ANY brand, I'm totally equal opportunity as long as I like the style of the garment or shoe.

Yeah, Mo -- I didn't grow up with it.

Oh -- but I just thought of an example. My mother used to go on and on sometimes about Harris tweed. My father owned a jacket that was Harris tweed and this was supposed to be a mark of true quality and he would have it forever, etc. (Which he did, by the way -- it was indestructible. Not that he wore it much during the time I knew him.)

Not long ago I saw a manbag made in the famed Harris tweed -- there was a little logo on it. And I confess, I was very interested in it. Not for myself, and not really to buy -- but I wanted to handle it.

My mother clearly had some powerful associations to that name, which I inherited in a sort of vestigial way.

"Which is a very long reply on my part leading me to say that we may as well just wear what we like and let everyone else deal with it, because even when it seems like a certain item sends a universal message, it probably doesn't." I'm with you, FF!

To Suz and Mo's point, I'm not immune to the appeal of certain brands, but I'm rarely swayed by the name alone -- it must be an item that speaks to me, for me to even be attracted to the brand. A lot of Valentino doesn't move me, but the Rockstuds do, and most Burberry, including that iconic plaid, doesn't call to me, but that teal Burberry trench did.

I think no lesser or greater of a person for what names they wear. A cool piece is a cool piece, whether it's F21 or St Laurent.

Interesting memory, Suz. I was raised around my feminist, but not feminine, step-mom and my brother and dad. Fashion was not a subject in my house ever. I loved twirly dresses as a kid even though the only dress I ever saw my step mom in was her wedding dress. She wore jeans and things that could accommodate her job in a machine shop and riding of any of her 3 motorcycles. Or to play sports (baseball and soccer teams) on the weekends. Fashion free zone in the extreme. Yet, there was enough show on my part of clothing interest that I was called a clothes horse sometime around 7 or 8, and had no idea why my family was referring to me as a horse! So I have some internal desire for fashion itself, simply no reference to those better designers or their stories.

This has been a fascinating (and somewhat dizzying!) thread - a lot to take in and catch up on after being gone all day.

From what I'm gleaning here, we are all products of our experiences - everything we have ever seen, heard, felt, read, or touched - and no two people will ever feel 100% exactly the same way about anything, especially something with a history as long and iconic as Burberry tartan.

This is how I see it:

Subject A lived an isolated life as a child. She dreamed of leaving the same four walls behind and seeing new things. She devoured books and movies about travel and adventure, and her library had a particularly wonderful selection on spy thrillers, mysteries, comics, and sci fi. She became hooked on James Bond, Get Smart, noir films, Bladerunner, Dr. Who, X-Men, The Matrix, etc. She never encountered a real-life person in Burberry until later in life, but she always carried that image of Super Cool Action Adventurers in Trench Coats in her mind. Burberry, being the original trench coat brand, became extra cool by association. Now that she can afford it, she jumps at the chance to buy a Burberry of her very own.

Subject B grew up well-off yet sometimes felt repressed. Her parents worked a lot and always seemed more interested in buying the latest status pieces and "keeping up with the Joneses." Her parents loved to certain brands with recognizable logos, and Burberry was one of them. She violently rejected her parents' way of life when she turned 18. She moved to a big city and reveled in local businesses, special restaurants that didn't exist anywhere else in the world, unique treasures at thrift stores, biographies, and books on philosophy. She loves the idea of celebrating individuality rather than searching for connection through iconic pieces. She has seen people and other characters in trench coats, but those stories held no particular emotional connection for her. Now, when she needs a coat, she doesn't even consider a Burberry coat that her mother might have suggested. Instead, she scours Etsy for a designer willing to make a coat with custom details just for her.

And of course there are millions of "subjects," and the range of experiences is unfathomable. I'm sure many people don't feel an emotional pull of any kind in regards to Burberry. Some might just like the design of one particular Burberry coat and that is that. Many don't know any fashion history and don't care. Many people are revolted by logos of any kind. "Horses for courses," as Angie has been saying.

It shouldn't be viewed as wrong to like or dislike anything, and I don't think it's fair to judge others for their likes, either. A good friend of ours was a victim of a hate crime when he was young... to this day, he is very biased against the race of those who attacked him. In a perfect world, no one would be biased, but we can't blame our friend for being a product of his experience.

Yikes, I have typed a novel here... to wrap up the thought... can't we all just get along?? We can never know the entirety of any attraction. There is not enough data to "judge" whether an attraction is moral or justified or whatnot - not that most of us could or would change what clothes we like even if a crowd of our peers deemed it wrong.

Fascinating, Mo!

And Janet, I think you've expressed my own feelings best. If I love an item, I love it. (I would love me some Rockstuds, too!)

Also, if it comes to my attention that a particular company espouses practices or principles that are anathema to me, I try to avoid buying their products-- no matter how much I love them on aesthetic grounds.

I guess in this I disagree with Echo (that is, if I am understanding her correctly.) Or rather, I agree with her that it is virtually impossible to avoid dirty hands in our society and by buying almost anything I am participating in a system that exploits people or animals somewhere in the world. But I still think that it's possible to improve the world through small incremental changes, and my fashion choices might be part of that.

With that said, I do pick my battles. Because we pretty much have to unless we do a much more rigidly defined version of the one dress challenge Anna linked to. (The first one had an array of accessories that looked bigger than my actual wardrobe, so to me, her one-dress experiment seemed more a cool aesthetic experiment, not an effort at minimalism or conservation or anything like that.)

Rae, you are such a terrific writer - here we have two fabulous stories! And you are so right -- that is what I meant about our personal experiences influencing us -- you've made it concrete for us.

Suz, you are quite right, and I didn't mean to imply that one should do nothing in regards to their moral or ethical beliefs. You are correct that sometimes small actions on the part of consumers can elicit big change. I just take issue with anyone (not you, personally) claiming or implying exclusive rights to the moral high ground because they dislike and refuse to purchase a certain product. We all take stands where we feel it is important, but we could all be indicted in other arenas, too, as none of us are perfect.

Ah, I get it, Echo, and I agree -- we are all implicated.

I agree with Suz, I really love Harris Tweed for the quality and the academic associations - I don't think I'd wear it for myself, but I want to touch and feel it!!

As for diamonds, I don't think I am going to pursue one for myself - I think it's a little rude for docs to wear a huge honking rock on their finger (most of my colleagues have very large 3-4 ct stones) when they are working with the population we are working with. I don't need $10,000 on my finger (or more) to show that my partner loves me.

I am so far away from being engaged, #singlelife

But I have two engagement rings that I have inherited sitting in a safety deposit box. I would totally trade them in for this

http://www.wendybrandes.com/st.....ement-Ring

This thread is fascinating and now I am scrambled to catch up. So just a few preliminary thoughts while the kids are distracting me in the background:
I do get a certain amount of pleasure wearing brand names that I was oblivious to when I was younger.

Anna, frankly, I wish you and others who knew about fashion were around here to appreciate my finds (or tell me I am off the wall), because there is no one like that in my immediate circle (except here of course!). I can't think of many things that don't needs a certain level of education and initiation to appreciate, and of course there is built in snobbery in that. So what?

Backward snobbery, or whatever you want to call it is another form of snobbery so I say let's go meta on snobbery - what is wrong with snobbery?

Logged back to say that I loved Rae's story. I want to be girl A.

Oh; I get that some girls love diamonds the way I love Kate Spade - it's just that I don't think it's something you have to wear all the time (in particular at work) - I keep my flashy stuff for my own time.

Now this discussion is getting interesting! *said through a mouthful of gingerbread*

Rae, I loved your examples because I think that you are exactly right that everyone comes at these storylines from a different, very personal angle and it's important to respect those differences.

Edited

Amazing thread! I got home late and have spent the last hour reading (and in some cases just skimming) it. So much has been written that it's hard to add anything significant, so I'll just make a few observations.

Wearing a Burberry scarf can be an insecure effort to show the world that you can afford one and are therefore a person of importance. It can also simply show appreciation for a beautiful item of quality that looks good with your coloring and keeps your neck warm.

A beautiful diamond can be an object of intense beauty, symbolizing what will hopefully be everlasting love. It can also be a very expensive present offered as an apology for bad behavior.

Doesn't it depend on the person, and the situation?

Just went back to delete certain things that perhaps I am no longer confortable in sharing. I must confess I was a bit shocked about some of the comments once I read in more detail. I really have to get better at reading entire threads before commenting. Thank you Echo for summing it up so well. To date, I have not been able to grow my own food, produce my own fuel, source my own sundries, clothes etc. Until I am able to do that, I have resigned myself to accept I am part of the problem. Therefore, taking a holier than thou attitude because of whatever choices I make, to reconcile that simple fact in my head (An example of that is my "no Walmart" policy), is never going to remove me from the problems and the irony of this world. I am not going to go preach to the Walmart shoppers, as if I have "been cued" into "what's really going on". As I said, we are all part of the problem and it is up to each of us to reconcile it in our own heads. I also come from a place of acceptance and tolerance. I am also exhausted of trying to prove myself that I do have a stance on every-single-darned-thing. Ah, no, that's too tiring. I don't need to reconcile everything I say and do. My inconsistencies are okay and part of the fact that I am human. So, I don't buy from Walmart but I love diamonds. Inconsistency, yes, and it is A-OK!

Anyhow, what was the question? Lol.