I can understand this position a lot more for Americans because of their history. It's the "European" Brits that amuse me, they rarely if ever speak another European language, let alone live and work there.
> A good example of this is the almost total global monopoly on ‘prestige male dress’ of the Western business suit, which in no way ‘works’ for the climatic conditions of most of the planet. What works are things like traditional Chinese silk robes or the Arab thawb. The business suit can be made to work anywhere via air conditioning, but inherently it’s an inferior garment for warm climates. If China had industrialised before the West, Europeans would probably be shivering in silk robes and cranking up the heating to compensate.
This is not how it works. It could and did get quite cold in northern China during the winter--Beijing gets an average of 11 snowy days every year, and most winter nights drop below freezing. And furthermore, a Western business suit absolutely will not protect you against any sort of serious cold. Pre-20th century people in cold climates wore clothing in multiple layers. A 19th century bourgeois man in winter didn't just have a suit (which was usually much more practical than a modern one--for instance the lapels could often be buttoned together to form a closed collar to retain heat), he had an overcoat (which could be of fur if he was rich enough), a hat, gloves, maybe even a cape or cloak on top of all of that. A Chinese person likewise who felt cold would simply put on more clothes on top of the clothes they were already wearing. The modern Western suit is made for the "climate" of a dry, air-conditioned or heated indoor space, and basically nowhere else. It is hot in the summer, cold in the winter, and provides no protection against wind or rain. It superficially resembles the clothes Europeans used to wear, but the resemblance doesn't go much further than that. It has virtually no utilitarian value at all and is pure decoration. I think that if Chinese or Arabic clothes became the bourgeois uniform, much the same process would have happened (and in the case of Chinese clothes, only the most expensive would be silk; you'd be better off imagining polyester robes!). Industrialization makes climate far less important and everyday clothing ceases to have much relationship to the weather. "Prestige" clothing does this most of all because the whole point of prestige clothing is signaling that you do not have to work outside or exert yourself.
I agree that the Western business suit is for an indoor climate and isn't designed with the elements in mind. However while the suit was designed for a (sometimes) heated indoor environment, it became widespread long before air conditioning so I can't see it having been developed somewhere where the climate is much hotter like say India. North east Asia though yes is not the best example as it's not as hot.
But the suits made before air conditioning were very different from modern ones, and came in various styles that were specifically suited to different climates! Before AC, it was common for men in the southern US to wear seersucker suits in the summer (imagine the stereotypical image of a racist southern politician the early 20th century and the light-colored striped suit he’s wearing, that’s a seersucker suit), which were much cooler and more breathable than the wool suits commonly seen up north. Likewise, if a culture from a warmer climate had developed an international bourgeoisie first, Europeans would not have “shivered in silk robes”, they would have adapted the clothing to their own climates, until the spread of climate control and motor vehicles caused international clothes to converge on what works in a dry room at ~20°C.
Yes there was some adaptation to climate but I'm thinking of figures like say Colonel Nasser of Egypt, always pictured in what looks like a traditional Western business suit. I doubt there was much air conditioning in Egypt in the 50s and 60s.
> Before AC, it was common for men in the southern US to wear seersucker suits in the summer
On the other hand, people in Los Angeles wore regular suits. People in Mexico and other tropical places wore suits too. People in (quite hot) Southern Spain and Southern Italy did as well.
So the seersucker is more about regional preference (tied to confederate era styles perhaps) than indicative that the western suit adapted to regional heat.
Yes, and an oldschool woolen tweed suit was much warmer than the ridiculous material of the modern suit. It was also more durable. Overally it was quite practical in cold weather. Their problem was the opposite - they could not dress down when the weather was warm. Shirts were practically considered underwear and it was unappropriate to wear a shirt only. And of course no shorts.
I agree with what you say here that the spread of "Western culture" is due significantly to its "status." Robin Hanson has said things along these lines: that success bestows "status" on things only incidentally connected with the success, which people then copy mindlessly in the hope that the success rubs off on them. The current style of glass skyscraper that you find in so many cities is an example of this I think. There is no practical reason for Dubai to have so many glass skyscrapers. It is literally "high status" architecture, and if the Dubai boom had happened 150 years ago it would have been built in a Parisian style. A serious military defeat for the west (Ukraine isn't serious enough) would change architectural styles.
To boil it down even further, many people who have this conception of "culture" don't even realize that what they're really describing is the service economy. E.g., When they talk about "multiculturalism," they're referring only to things like musical theatre and more variety of cuisines.
In reality, meanwhile, "culture" is actually anathema to the service economy, because the service economy is OPTIONAL.
"Culture" is NOT that. A "culture" is a set of moral, social and familial obligations and restrictions that are NOT OPTIONAL. You MUST fulfill said obligations and follow the rules in order to gain social approval, no matter how much you might HATE doing them.
Douglas Murray recalls a conversation with someone who admitted that when he was little he thought vanilla was just the base of ice cream, with no flavour of its own but existed to have flavours added to it.
As an adult he realised vanilla was a delicious flavour in its own right. And we fall into the trap of thinking our English-speaking cultures have no culture, like this misconception of vanilla.
When we live abroad we realise there are infinite wonderful things about our own cultures that are not universal, and we may have completely taken for granted. We are just blinded to them through not knowing anything different.
I would like to defend Alexander's views here. The core elements of culture are folk clothing, folk dancing and folk songs. This for example still exists in Scotland. But in England, what was the last time the equivalent of a tartan and the bagpipe existed? When was Morris dancing an alive tradition, and not historical re-enactment? It seems these things disappeared from England and the Northeastern US, this becomes clear if we compare them with close neighbors who retained them, like Scotland, or the US South, where folk music (country), folk dancing (square) and folk clothing (cowboy boots and hats) are still a thing.
The kind of clothing I would associate the closest with England is the kind of greenish tweed jacket, which was worn by rural gentry. The clothing worn by peasants completely disappeared.
And yes, this must be industrialization. The disappearance of the peasant class, so complete disappearance that even the word sounds strange, there are farmers, but there have not been any peasants for a long time.
And this is what the lack of culture means. Apparently, culture means peasants. Now that I said it out loud, it feels fairly ridiculous. But true - I mean folk clothing, dancing, songs obviously means peasants, who else?
But yes, I agree with the association with prestige and power, because that is the obvious consequence of industrialization.
This is an excellent critique of the “ethnic food festival” conception of culture. The assumption that culture must be something exotic, colourful, or consumable says more about the observer than the society they’re judging.
English cuisine probably plays an unfortunate role in this misunderstanding. Because traditional English food has the reputation of being fairly plain—boiled meats, roasts, puddings—it has made it easy for critics to contrast Britain with places like Italy, India, or Mexico and conclude that Britain somehow “has no culture.” But that comparison reduces culture to a kind of sensory spectacle rather than recognising deeper forms of cultural production—institutions, literature, law, and political traditions—areas where Britain has historically been extraordinarily influential.
There’s also a broader structural point here. Industrial societies almost inevitably appear culturally “flatter” than pre-industrial ones. Germany, Britain, and the United States would all seem relatively muted to people who associate culture primarily with traditional dress, folk dance, or distinctive cuisine. In anthropological terms, what disappears is not culture itself but the visible markers of pre-industrial life, which are gradually replaced by the more abstract institutional and behavioural norms that organise life in large-scale modern societies.
Many of the societies held up as culturally vibrant today simply haven’t yet passed through two centuries of industrial transformation. They still retain strong kinship systems, traditional dress, and highly visible customs because the social structures that produced them are still intact. Comparing those societies with a highly industrialised country like Britain is therefore something of an apples-and-oranges comparison.
The irony, of course, is that millions of people from those culturally “rich” societies are willing to risk everything to move to places like Britain, Germany, or the United States. What they are seeking is not more culture, but the stability, prosperity, and institutional order produced by the very post-industrial societies that critics insist have none.
In other words, the societies most often accused of having “no culture” are precisely the ones millions of people are trying to join.
I can understand this position a lot more for Americans because of their history. It's the "European" Brits that amuse me, they rarely if ever speak another European language, let alone live and work there.
Even for Americans though I think it's delusional. Like the idea that their conception of Irish or Italians is a culture but general American is not.
> A good example of this is the almost total global monopoly on ‘prestige male dress’ of the Western business suit, which in no way ‘works’ for the climatic conditions of most of the planet. What works are things like traditional Chinese silk robes or the Arab thawb. The business suit can be made to work anywhere via air conditioning, but inherently it’s an inferior garment for warm climates. If China had industrialised before the West, Europeans would probably be shivering in silk robes and cranking up the heating to compensate.
This is not how it works. It could and did get quite cold in northern China during the winter--Beijing gets an average of 11 snowy days every year, and most winter nights drop below freezing. And furthermore, a Western business suit absolutely will not protect you against any sort of serious cold. Pre-20th century people in cold climates wore clothing in multiple layers. A 19th century bourgeois man in winter didn't just have a suit (which was usually much more practical than a modern one--for instance the lapels could often be buttoned together to form a closed collar to retain heat), he had an overcoat (which could be of fur if he was rich enough), a hat, gloves, maybe even a cape or cloak on top of all of that. A Chinese person likewise who felt cold would simply put on more clothes on top of the clothes they were already wearing. The modern Western suit is made for the "climate" of a dry, air-conditioned or heated indoor space, and basically nowhere else. It is hot in the summer, cold in the winter, and provides no protection against wind or rain. It superficially resembles the clothes Europeans used to wear, but the resemblance doesn't go much further than that. It has virtually no utilitarian value at all and is pure decoration. I think that if Chinese or Arabic clothes became the bourgeois uniform, much the same process would have happened (and in the case of Chinese clothes, only the most expensive would be silk; you'd be better off imagining polyester robes!). Industrialization makes climate far less important and everyday clothing ceases to have much relationship to the weather. "Prestige" clothing does this most of all because the whole point of prestige clothing is signaling that you do not have to work outside or exert yourself.
I agree that the Western business suit is for an indoor climate and isn't designed with the elements in mind. However while the suit was designed for a (sometimes) heated indoor environment, it became widespread long before air conditioning so I can't see it having been developed somewhere where the climate is much hotter like say India. North east Asia though yes is not the best example as it's not as hot.
But the suits made before air conditioning were very different from modern ones, and came in various styles that were specifically suited to different climates! Before AC, it was common for men in the southern US to wear seersucker suits in the summer (imagine the stereotypical image of a racist southern politician the early 20th century and the light-colored striped suit he’s wearing, that’s a seersucker suit), which were much cooler and more breathable than the wool suits commonly seen up north. Likewise, if a culture from a warmer climate had developed an international bourgeoisie first, Europeans would not have “shivered in silk robes”, they would have adapted the clothing to their own climates, until the spread of climate control and motor vehicles caused international clothes to converge on what works in a dry room at ~20°C.
Yes there was some adaptation to climate but I'm thinking of figures like say Colonel Nasser of Egypt, always pictured in what looks like a traditional Western business suit. I doubt there was much air conditioning in Egypt in the 50s and 60s.
> Before AC, it was common for men in the southern US to wear seersucker suits in the summer
On the other hand, people in Los Angeles wore regular suits. People in Mexico and other tropical places wore suits too. People in (quite hot) Southern Spain and Southern Italy did as well.
So the seersucker is more about regional preference (tied to confederate era styles perhaps) than indicative that the western suit adapted to regional heat.
Yes, and an oldschool woolen tweed suit was much warmer than the ridiculous material of the modern suit. It was also more durable. Overally it was quite practical in cold weather. Their problem was the opposite - they could not dress down when the weather was warm. Shirts were practically considered underwear and it was unappropriate to wear a shirt only. And of course no shorts.
I agree with what you say here that the spread of "Western culture" is due significantly to its "status." Robin Hanson has said things along these lines: that success bestows "status" on things only incidentally connected with the success, which people then copy mindlessly in the hope that the success rubs off on them. The current style of glass skyscraper that you find in so many cities is an example of this I think. There is no practical reason for Dubai to have so many glass skyscrapers. It is literally "high status" architecture, and if the Dubai boom had happened 150 years ago it would have been built in a Parisian style. A serious military defeat for the west (Ukraine isn't serious enough) would change architectural styles.
To boil it down even further, many people who have this conception of "culture" don't even realize that what they're really describing is the service economy. E.g., When they talk about "multiculturalism," they're referring only to things like musical theatre and more variety of cuisines.
In reality, meanwhile, "culture" is actually anathema to the service economy, because the service economy is OPTIONAL.
"Culture" is NOT that. A "culture" is a set of moral, social and familial obligations and restrictions that are NOT OPTIONAL. You MUST fulfill said obligations and follow the rules in order to gain social approval, no matter how much you might HATE doing them.
Douglas Murray recalls a conversation with someone who admitted that when he was little he thought vanilla was just the base of ice cream, with no flavour of its own but existed to have flavours added to it.
As an adult he realised vanilla was a delicious flavour in its own right. And we fall into the trap of thinking our English-speaking cultures have no culture, like this misconception of vanilla.
When we live abroad we realise there are infinite wonderful things about our own cultures that are not universal, and we may have completely taken for granted. We are just blinded to them through not knowing anything different.
I would like to defend Alexander's views here. The core elements of culture are folk clothing, folk dancing and folk songs. This for example still exists in Scotland. But in England, what was the last time the equivalent of a tartan and the bagpipe existed? When was Morris dancing an alive tradition, and not historical re-enactment? It seems these things disappeared from England and the Northeastern US, this becomes clear if we compare them with close neighbors who retained them, like Scotland, or the US South, where folk music (country), folk dancing (square) and folk clothing (cowboy boots and hats) are still a thing.
The kind of clothing I would associate the closest with England is the kind of greenish tweed jacket, which was worn by rural gentry. The clothing worn by peasants completely disappeared.
And yes, this must be industrialization. The disappearance of the peasant class, so complete disappearance that even the word sounds strange, there are farmers, but there have not been any peasants for a long time.
And this is what the lack of culture means. Apparently, culture means peasants. Now that I said it out loud, it feels fairly ridiculous. But true - I mean folk clothing, dancing, songs obviously means peasants, who else?
But yes, I agree with the association with prestige and power, because that is the obvious consequence of industrialization.
This is an excellent critique of the “ethnic food festival” conception of culture. The assumption that culture must be something exotic, colourful, or consumable says more about the observer than the society they’re judging.
English cuisine probably plays an unfortunate role in this misunderstanding. Because traditional English food has the reputation of being fairly plain—boiled meats, roasts, puddings—it has made it easy for critics to contrast Britain with places like Italy, India, or Mexico and conclude that Britain somehow “has no culture.” But that comparison reduces culture to a kind of sensory spectacle rather than recognising deeper forms of cultural production—institutions, literature, law, and political traditions—areas where Britain has historically been extraordinarily influential.
There’s also a broader structural point here. Industrial societies almost inevitably appear culturally “flatter” than pre-industrial ones. Germany, Britain, and the United States would all seem relatively muted to people who associate culture primarily with traditional dress, folk dance, or distinctive cuisine. In anthropological terms, what disappears is not culture itself but the visible markers of pre-industrial life, which are gradually replaced by the more abstract institutional and behavioural norms that organise life in large-scale modern societies.
Many of the societies held up as culturally vibrant today simply haven’t yet passed through two centuries of industrial transformation. They still retain strong kinship systems, traditional dress, and highly visible customs because the social structures that produced them are still intact. Comparing those societies with a highly industrialised country like Britain is therefore something of an apples-and-oranges comparison.
The irony, of course, is that millions of people from those culturally “rich” societies are willing to risk everything to move to places like Britain, Germany, or the United States. What they are seeking is not more culture, but the stability, prosperity, and institutional order produced by the very post-industrial societies that critics insist have none.
In other words, the societies most often accused of having “no culture” are precisely the ones millions of people are trying to join.