FiveHourMarathon
You can get anything here except red ink
1yr ago·Edited 1yr ago
Where does the intense effort people historically put into cleanliness fit in?
An example in living (and loving) memory: my grandfather shined his shoes thrice every week, right up until the end of his life. He said he was lazy, his father (my great grandfather, who emigrated) polished his boots every day. Before work at the cement factory, for twenty five years (I still wear the gold watch he received on special occasions). AFAIK I'm the only one of my (much wealthier) friends/classmates/colleagues who ever polishes his own shoes and boots after conditioning the leather, and I do it perhaps quarterly?
Shoeshine stands used to be a constant of every sidewalk in every town and city, I think there's still a few in Major midtown NYC subway stations but I don't know anywhere else outside a cobbler I could have someone do it. Hell last time I needed cordovan wax the only physical place that sold it was the cobbler. Those same historical sources you talk about talk about having a servant shine your shoes daily.
I'm reading Caro's bio of Lyndon Johnson right now, he talks about Johnson's neighbors growing up in a dirt poor Texas farming town being shocked to see the Johnson kids wore dirty clothes, and that the Johnson house was the only one where they ever saw dirty dishes in the sink. This in a town where cotton farm labor was a family affair, where dinner was frequently cornbread fried in lard for some calories during hard times. Yet the farm wife was expected to scrub floors, iron sheets, dust tables, do all kinds of cleaning tasks that no bourgeois family of my generation engages in.
My great grandmother would be horrified to see my home, with no ironing done, little dusting, the floors polished and waxed once a year rather than fortnightly. Cleanliness used to be a class marker, not of immense wealth, but simply of avoiding the implication of utter poverty and degradation. Various labor saving technologies, from vacuums and dishwashers to non-iron shirts to automobile paint that doesn't peel if it isn't waxed weekly, have made keeping fairly clean easy. But that in turn had a knock on effect, that my generation doesn't value Cleanliness as a class signifier in the same way that prior generations did.
Now, maybe that's an industrial revolution tradition that doesn't stretch back, I'm not that familiar. But for non-peasants before the mid 20th century servants were also the norm! As Agatha Christie said "I never thought in my life we would be so rich as to have an automobile or so poor as to not have servants." And you better believe that before the 20th century a caning was how you dealt with a servant who didn't clean your boots before you woke up. It's quite likely the kings squires were going over his armor every single day on campaign, and if they didn't get it perfect they could expect punishment. And they better keep themselves clean too, the king can't have dirty attendants. Soldiers above the poverty line weren't filthy.
Tldr: evidence indicates that cleanliness was a significant non-poverty class indicator before about 1980, or to put it in Python: of course he's a king he doesn't have shit all over him.
This paper (I have seen the same theory in other places, but don't know how many independent sources it has) suggests that Northern European houseproud culture is a lingering effect of home-produced dairy products being sold outside the home in the Early Modern Age - dairying required the highest hygiene standards of any farm activity.
The obvious test is whether olive oil people and their descendants are less houseproud than butter people and their descendants. I wouldn't know how to test this given the obvious issues with the accuracy of intra-European racial stereotypes. This theory is of course perfectly consistent with the idea that Medieval peasants lived in filth - it predicts that Northern Europeans didn't become houseproud until semi-commercial dairying became a thing.
No but their clothes didn't look new, and they certainly weren't able to get all the residue out... think of the stains that stay in ordinary bright clothes, the impossibility of getting fruit or vegetable stains out of brightly colored clothes even today.
That's what your eye will expect to see when they see clothes that are supposed to have been exposed to hard use... and if it doesn't it will break the reality of the film.
Even though people put incredible effort into cleanliness in the past it couldn't keep things looking new, and before the era if machine washing and chemical cleaners "not new" looked very distinctively different form lawrence olivier
There were some ways around this. One example that comes to mind is the previous use of detachable shirt collars and dark three piece suits. The latter didn’t show stains as well and the former allowed men to wear the same shirt multiple days in a row while only having to swap/clean their collar.
Read Caro's book. Johnson City circa 1920 had no running water, no electricity, no appliances, the farmers there were dirt poor on the edge of slipping under altogether. It was described as remarkable and extraordinary that Johnson's mother did not maintain cleanliness.
A big part of that is definitely a sense of middle class pride, and servants are something important to think about, but pride and servants were very common throughout history for anyone above absolute poverty. One would invest in a maid long before more clothes or better tools.
In their hospitality, their hovel is described in great detail. They put much effort into cleaning for their guests, varnishing with wax their old wooden cups, leveling their broken table, offering water to wash their guest's feet and hands. Uniform filth this is not. Destitution totally foreign to a modern American, yes, but not a total lack of pride and cleanliness as is complained about in grimdark brown and grey color palettes of tv shows.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Where does the intense effort people historically put into cleanliness fit in?
An example in living (and loving) memory: my grandfather shined his shoes thrice every week, right up until the end of his life. He said he was lazy, his father (my great grandfather, who emigrated) polished his boots every day. Before work at the cement factory, for twenty five years (I still wear the gold watch he received on special occasions). AFAIK I'm the only one of my (much wealthier) friends/classmates/colleagues who ever polishes his own shoes and boots after conditioning the leather, and I do it perhaps quarterly?
Shoeshine stands used to be a constant of every sidewalk in every town and city, I think there's still a few in Major midtown NYC subway stations but I don't know anywhere else outside a cobbler I could have someone do it. Hell last time I needed cordovan wax the only physical place that sold it was the cobbler. Those same historical sources you talk about talk about having a servant shine your shoes daily.
I'm reading Caro's bio of Lyndon Johnson right now, he talks about Johnson's neighbors growing up in a dirt poor Texas farming town being shocked to see the Johnson kids wore dirty clothes, and that the Johnson house was the only one where they ever saw dirty dishes in the sink. This in a town where cotton farm labor was a family affair, where dinner was frequently cornbread fried in lard for some calories during hard times. Yet the farm wife was expected to scrub floors, iron sheets, dust tables, do all kinds of cleaning tasks that no bourgeois family of my generation engages in.
My great grandmother would be horrified to see my home, with no ironing done, little dusting, the floors polished and waxed once a year rather than fortnightly. Cleanliness used to be a class marker, not of immense wealth, but simply of avoiding the implication of utter poverty and degradation. Various labor saving technologies, from vacuums and dishwashers to non-iron shirts to automobile paint that doesn't peel if it isn't waxed weekly, have made keeping fairly clean easy. But that in turn had a knock on effect, that my generation doesn't value Cleanliness as a class signifier in the same way that prior generations did.
Now, maybe that's an industrial revolution tradition that doesn't stretch back, I'm not that familiar. But for non-peasants before the mid 20th century servants were also the norm! As Agatha Christie said "I never thought in my life we would be so rich as to have an automobile or so poor as to not have servants." And you better believe that before the 20th century a caning was how you dealt with a servant who didn't clean your boots before you woke up. It's quite likely the kings squires were going over his armor every single day on campaign, and if they didn't get it perfect they could expect punishment. And they better keep themselves clean too, the king can't have dirty attendants. Soldiers above the poverty line weren't filthy.
Tldr: evidence indicates that cleanliness was a significant non-poverty class indicator before about 1980, or to put it in Python: of course he's a king he doesn't have shit all over him.
Also: happy you're upping output!
This paper (I have seen the same theory in other places, but don't know how many independent sources it has) suggests that Northern European houseproud culture is a lingering effect of home-produced dairy products being sold outside the home in the Early Modern Age - dairying required the highest hygiene standards of any farm activity.
The obvious test is whether olive oil people and their descendants are less houseproud than butter people and their descendants. I wouldn't know how to test this given the obvious issues with the accuracy of intra-European racial stereotypes. This theory is of course perfectly consistent with the idea that Medieval peasants lived in filth - it predicts that Northern Europeans didn't become houseproud until semi-commercial dairying became a thing.
More options
Context Copy link
No but their clothes didn't look new, and they certainly weren't able to get all the residue out... think of the stains that stay in ordinary bright clothes, the impossibility of getting fruit or vegetable stains out of brightly colored clothes even today.
That's what your eye will expect to see when they see clothes that are supposed to have been exposed to hard use... and if it doesn't it will break the reality of the film.
Even though people put incredible effort into cleanliness in the past it couldn't keep things looking new, and before the era if machine washing and chemical cleaners "not new" looked very distinctively different form lawrence olivier
There were some ways around this. One example that comes to mind is the previous use of detachable shirt collars and dark three piece suits. The latter didn’t show stains as well and the former allowed men to wear the same shirt multiple days in a row while only having to swap/clean their collar.
Yes exacly... thus you'd either look faded or show obvious visible wear and aging of your clothes.... or you'd wear dark colors.
Filmmakers struggle to age clothes appropriately... so they put them in dark colors
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Read Caro's book. Johnson City circa 1920 had no running water, no electricity, no appliances, the farmers there were dirt poor on the edge of slipping under altogether. It was described as remarkable and extraordinary that Johnson's mother did not maintain cleanliness.
A big part of that is definitely a sense of middle class pride, and servants are something important to think about, but pride and servants were very common throughout history for anyone above absolute poverty. One would invest in a maid long before more clothes or better tools.
See also Ovid's tale of Baucis and Philemon.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/26073/26073-h/Met_VIII-XI.html#bookVIII_fableVI
In their hospitality, their hovel is described in great detail. They put much effort into cleaning for their guests, varnishing with wax their old wooden cups, leveling their broken table, offering water to wash their guest's feet and hands. Uniform filth this is not. Destitution totally foreign to a modern American, yes, but not a total lack of pride and cleanliness as is complained about in grimdark brown and grey color palettes of tv shows.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link