Froma Harrop's recent editorial "The casualization of America" is a pointed lament about our cultural slob-iness and the attitudes from which it has arisen. In summary:

Some observers suspect that a collapse in grooming and attention to dress has contributed to the decline in civility on our streets and in our politics. People don't care what they look like in public because they don't care about the public. They have little notion of, or interest in, playing a supportive role in their civilization.

And this final snarl:

It seems that the richer this country gets, the more slovenly people have become. It's a grim scene all right.

I found myself sympathetic to Ms. Harrop's observations and approach. But I also wondered, why has public and occupational attire and grooming changed so much since I was a kid?

Commonplace "Caszh"

I compiled a short list of places or situations in which one's appearance and/or the dress code has become more casual in my last 40 years:

1. The work place: I remember when "casual Friday" was a big treat in the office environment I worked in 20 years ago. Now it is much more the norm than the occasional indulgence.
   
   
2. Church: Flip-flops and cutoffs are widespread in our church during our hot Texas summers, especially during Saturday night services that tend to foster a more casual feel anyway. But even this Easter Sunday in the "classic" service (read "service for those over 50 who like to sing hymns") I was one of the very few men who wore a jacket and tie.
   
   
3. Public schools: But this is only very generally the case. I note an exception below...
   
   
4. Dating: Ms. Harrop mentioned in her article that "young women doll up for a date while the young men with them look like total slobs." And I have noticed this too. Sometimes I want to pull aside a young couple I see and ask the female, "Young lady, did your date just get out of prison, or does he always dress like that?"

Has attention to personal appearance waned because it really doesn't matter? Shouldn't we be mature enough to give preference to another's inner person (virtue, character, personality, talent) rather than that person's unkempt exterior?

Can we separate the "outer" and "inner" person? Should we?

Rumpled at Your Own Risk

On the flip side, here are a few areas that still demand attention to appearance and dress code:

1. Jury duty -- From the Dallas (TX) County jury services instructions to potential jurors:
   
   "Appropriate dress is required.  No shorts or tank tops.  Anyone wearing improper attire is subject to being rescheduled.  Please dress as you would for church or a job interview."
   
   Hmmm. Whoever wrote that hasn't been to (my) church lately, although it is interesting that the "expectation" of proper dress is still associated with church. But back to the point: Can't I execute my juror responsibilities just as solemnly in my backyard barbeque togs? Evidently, Dallas County doesn't think so.
   
   
2. Public schools -- I don't know what it is like in your region, but in the last few years in the DFW area some public schools have been re-instituting dress codes (read "three standard colors of polo shirts and khaki pants or skirts"). The purposes were, in part, to address (a) slovenly student attire, (b) perceived inequities between students who could afford stylish brands and those who shopped at Wal-Mart, and (c) the gang-related dress codes that were sources of escalating student violence. (If someone had only counseled them to "look on the inside" first.)
   
   In my daughter's public high school the dress code required boys to wear belted jeans or pants, and a tucked-in shirt. No ripped jeans. No hoodies allowed (it was too easy to hide contraband in them, like cell phones or knives or small nuclear devices). Girls' skirts had to be fingertip length. No spaghetti straps. No flip-flops. Why? According to the principal, dress and appearance were two elements in an overall strategy to develop an environment for academic excellence. Whatever the contribution attire and grooming made to the ultimate goal, Sachse High is still among the academically "recognized" high schools in our district.
   
   
3. Weddings -- Maybe a few rogue couples are getting married in tees and shorts and sandals, but not around here. It is not unusual to spend the cost of a small luxury sports car on one's wedding, and a significant portion of that could be for the bride's I'll-wear-this-for-three-hours-and-then-pack-it-away-in-mothballs-forever-dress. And shows like Platinum Weddings set the bar high for brides-to-be. I'm not saying this is necessarily "right," but couples still feel the need to dress for this all-important occasion. Natty boxers and tank tops just aren't enough.

Simplistic Separation

As much as we would like to separate inner from outer  -- one's person from one's attire - I have a very difficult time doing that. So do others, even outside my generation. The teen gangs I referred to above are using dress to communicate who they are.

I wonder if those who are advocating an inner/outer dichotomy are themselves simply over reacting to our culture's addiction to doctoring one's looks and dolling-up one's appearance.  Plastic surgery has never been more popular, and it's a growing trend among teen girls. I am not aware of any decline in upscale clothing brands (apart from a general downturn because of the sagging economy). And for an ample dose of narcissism, browse through the latest editions of Self and Us next time you are in the supermarket checkout line. How can we justly criticize those who rail against our culture's obsession with the exterior and also challenge us, "If you can't accept me as I am - despite how I look - then that's your problem."

Well, I guess we can't blame those who beseech us to look beyond their frayed and sagging garb for the "real me" underneath. All we can hope is that they don't have to go on a job interview soon. Their prospective employer might not be as liberated or magnanimous.

Larry and the Emperor

Remember Larry Platt, that "Pants on the Ground" guy who rocked the American Idol auditions with his unapologetic bashing of the slip-down-your-pants-and-show-off-your-boxers trend among young males? "Pants on the ground! Pants on the ground! Lookin' like a fool with your pants on the ground!" Larry chanted until Simon Cowell could take no more. Larry should be more understanding and less critical, right?

I think Larry's video on YouTube went viral not only because of his exuberant performance, but also (and maybe more so) because of what he said. Search for "Pants on the ground" on YouTube and note the number of parodies of that message.

Hans Christian Anderson's ancient tale of "The Emperor's New Clothes" is relevant even today:

An Emperor who cares for nothing but his wardrobe hires two weavers who promise him the finest suit of clothes from a fabric invisible to anyone who is unfit for his position or "just hopelessly stupid." The Emperor cannot see the clothes himself, but pretends that he can for fear of appearing unfit for his position or stupid; his ministers do the same. When the swindlers report that the suit is finished, they dress him in mime and the Emperor then marches in procession before his subjects. A child in the crowd calls out that the Emperor is wearing nothing at all and the cry is taken up by others. The Emperor cringes, suspecting the assertion is true, but holds himself up proudly and continues the procession.

The spirit of that perceptive child lives on in Larry Platt.

So do we have a present-day Emperor on the loose? A culture so addicted to appearance that it has not considered the "real inside"?

Or maybe some well-meaning weavers whose goal is to prove the Emperor insufferably vain and "hopelessly stupid"?

Pants-on-the-ground is not stylish; it is foolish.

Appearance-doesn't-matter is not realistic; it is idealistic.

Larry is on the right track, I think. While life is more than clothes, how we wear those clothes speaks volumes about our life.