User:Pomchidog/Dandy

Dandyism and Capitalism
Dandyism is intricately linked with modern capitalism, embodying both a product of and a critique against it. According to Elisa Glick, the dandy's attention to their appearance and their engagement "consumption and display of luxury goods" can be read as an expression of capitalist commodification. However, interestingly, this meticulous attention to personal appearance can also be seen as an assertion of individuality and thus a revolt against capitalism’s emphasis on mass production and utilitarianism.

Underscoring this somewhat paradoxical nature, philosopher Thorsten Botz-Bornstein describes the dandy as "an anarchist who does not claim anarchy." He argues that this simultaneous abiding by and also ignorance of capitalist social pressures speaks to what he calls a “playful attitude towards life’s conventions." Not only does the dandy play with traditional conceptions of gender, but also with the socioeconomic norms of the society they inhabit; he agrees the importance that dandyism places on uniquely personal style directly opposes capitalism’s call for conformity.

Thomas Spence Smith highlights the function of style in maintaining social boundaries and individual status, particularly as traditional social structures have decrystallized in modernity. He notes that "style becomes a crucial element in maintaining social boundaries and individual status." This process "creates a market for new social models, with the dandy as a prime example of how individuals navigate and resist the pressures of a capitalist society." Here, another paradoxical relation between dandyism and capitalism emerges: dandyism’s emphasis on individuality and on forming an idiomatic sense of style can be read as a sort of marketing or commodification of the self.