Do animals not wear clothes?
Montaigne writes about all aspects of life. He writes about how we live and how to live. Or he writes about practical aspects of life, for example, that it would be useful if each town had a central information point where you can get all the information you need. (see my blog last week) Montaigne writes also about aspects of life that are so obvious that they are ignored by most of us. In this sense the Essays are also a kind of philosophy of daily life in the style as later elaborated by, for instance, Michel de Certeau (see for example here). This branch of philosophy discusses common if not banal aspects of daily life that are ignored most of the time but that belong to the constitutive aspects of who we are. Essay I-36, Of the custom of clothing oneself, is a case in point.
In this essay I-36 Montaigne wonders why actually we wear clothes. Isn’t it strange that while animals and plants live on this earth with the skin uncovered, “it is incredible that we only are brought into the world in a defective and indigent condition, and in such a state as cannot subsist without external aid.” Plants and animals don’t need clothes to protect themselves, and therefore Montaigne thinks that it is a human defect that we need them. That’s also what once many who have discussed the problem often thought. But is it really so?
To my mind, Montaigne actually doesn’t come to the point in this essay, which is – as so many essays – rather casuistic and gives only examples of persons and people who do or do not wear clothes in certain – often the same – circumstances. It’s true, Montaigne makes us aware of a fact of human life that belongs to the human condition, but it is not more than that. Anyway, after having stated that plants and animals are better adapted to nature than humans are, just because they do not wear clothes or another cover, Montaigne observes that “… of those nations who have no manner of knowledge of clothing, some are situated under the same temperature that we are, and some in much colder climates.” At first sight this observation says that clothes are actually not necessary. However, another reading of this passage says, I think, just why we are better adapted than plants and animals that have no other choice than to go naked: Clothes make it possible to adapt to the environment according to your personal wishes. And although in certain climates clothes may seem superfluous, they make it possible to live in climates in which humans without clothes cannot live. In other words, clothes extend the life possibilities. They are not a defect but an improvement of the human condition and they are one of the factors that have made human beings so successful.
I could go on with my close reading of this essay and show that Montaigne, implicitly and without being aware of it himself, points to other functions of clothes as well. See for example Montaigne’s statement “I observe much greater distance betwixt my habit and that of one of our country boors, than betwixt his and that of a man who has no other covering but his skin.” Or, “The Romans fought at a very great disadvantage, in the engagement they had with the Carthaginians near Piacenza, by reason that they went to the charge with their blood congealed and their limbs numbed with cold, whereas Hannibal had caused great fires to be dispersed quite through his camp to warm his soldiers, and oil to be distributed amongst them, to the end that anointing themselves, they might render their nerves more supple and active, and fortify the pores against the violence of the air and freezing wind, which raged in that season.” Such and other observations just point to reasons why clothes are important for humans and why humans can use clothes for certain practical – and also social and personal – functions that do not exist for plants and animals. However, I’ll limit myself to mentioning the most important functions of clothes:
- Protection. This can be a protection against the climate, against the actual weather conditions but also the kind of protection given by work clothes, such as gloves protecting your hands against scratches, the helmet of a cyclist or the clothes of a fireman.
- Identification, like the uniform of a police officer or the club outfit of a sports team.
- Modesty: The clothes you wear for a certain occasion like a feast or a funeral.
- Status: Clothes used to express your rank or position in society. What is actually the same: the clothes you wear to express the group you identify with, like wearing casual clothes or a suit, not on a certain occasion but for indicating your reference group.
- Adornment. Despite the functions just mentioned, in many cases personal variation in colour and style of clothes is possible in order to express personal taste and appearance.
It will not be difficult to find more functions that clothes have. All this makes clear that far from being a defect in the human condition, cloths create possibilities and they are an expression of human adaptation and human culture.
1 comment:
Well, we are soft-bodied, mostly hairless and civilized by morality and religion. Mostly. And, in most populated regions, there is winter. Humans living in warm climates have, and largely pursue, the option of wearing less clothing. Here is where civilization piece breaks down: frequently, those societies have less violent crime. As if a more obvious vulnerability manifests itself and acts as deterrent. Native Americans, sometimes depicted as more than mortal beings, wore less clothing and were called naked savages. But, like ordinary mortals, they needed warmth and shelter in winter. So, clothing is both practical and pragmatic in every sense. Uh, you are probably more likely to be shot, while fully clothed.Even benefits have disadvantages.
Post a Comment