When the Tibetan lama dons the deep burgundy robes, the Korean priest puts on his gray seungbok, the Japanese monk dresses in his koroma, or the Indian Buddhist wraps themselves in saffron robes, it is a sacred gesture. It instantly brings a sense of upliftment and purpose. There is inherent meaning, determination, reverence, and a centering into one’s core of awake-ness, beyond distraction and compulsion. But the robes of the king or queen, the officer’s uniform, the chef’s hat, and the business suit are equally heavy with implied meaning. And, if chosen with care, from an open and grounded presence, every conceivable way to cover our bodies can be a force for a better reality and a better society.

However, taking trips through airports and into offices, shops, and city streets across the West, a quiet uniformity is evident. It is not of elegance or distinction, but of deliberate carelessness—a marked change from even a few years ago, but marching steadily across the decades. 

Sweatpants shuffle alongside oversized hoodies, baggy T-shirts that conceal posture and physique, and athletic shoes never intended for sport. Once, public spaces reflected intention: tailored suits with structured shoulders signaling authority, dresses that honored femininity and occasion, and attire appropriate to age, role, and station. Today, that visual language has eroded into a homogenized sea of comfort-first sloppiness. 

This is not about nostalgia or a call to return to corsets and cravats. Indeed this is no mere fashion trend. It is a profound symptom and acceleration of psychological, cultural, and spiritual decline. Modern dress panders to the specter of laziness, nihilism, narcissism. It is built on the mainstreaming of prison and rap aesthetics, emasculation of menswear, erosion of modesty and boundaries, a flattening of status and class signals. 

And above all, it is a loss of the sacred. Far from the theory that it is liberating individuality, instead it traps many in a False Self of conformity. The expression of one’s deeper Essence or True Self is left for extinction. Yet dress itself may also provide an accessible avenue out of this malaise, this spiritual desert.

The great cultural context

Even in the early days of human history, clothing served as far more than protection from the elements. It was, and is, the great bearer of ritual, communication, and social architecture. The draconian sumptuary laws in medieval Europe and Asia legally regulated, in minute detail, fabrics and styles allowed by rank. Until the mid-20th century, shoulder padding, defined collars, and tailored fits in menswear projected strength and competence. Women’s attire often accentuated form and grace—of course within the bounds of modesty. Children dressed in clothing similar to their parents as a way to foster maturity, while elders maintained dignity. These choices reinforced harmony, Visible distinctions of status and class provided cues for navigating the cultural world, helped with aspiring to better one’s life, and as a monitor of respect. One glance at a man’s suit or a woman’s ensemble conveyed role, achievement, and, most importantly, both self-regard and humility toward the larger world of people, ideas, and the sacred. Of course this outer show could merely be a false front, but the external form actually helped to curtail dysfunctional behavior or attitudes.

All this unraveled in the 20th century. The 1960s counterculture rejected “the Man,” i.e the forces of control and bourgeois formality. Corporate casual in the 1990s, accelerated by tech culture, normalized khakis and polos, which collapsed further into today’s athleisure wear. By the 2010s, what began as Friday casual became everyday default. Powerful subcultures emerged that hastened the decline. Hip-hop and rap aesthetics, from urban America “raged against the  machine” in the 1980s–2000s, mainstreaming prison clothes, including sagging pants (a prison signal due to restricted belts), oversized shirts, and hoodies. Music videos, athletes, and celebrities became cool symbols of rebellion, hardship and railing against institutions. This aesthetic glamorized disorder over aspiration, chaos over change.

Parallel to this ran the emasculation of male dress. Structured jackets with broad shoulders gave way to soft, dropped-shoulder garments. Crisp collars continue to shrink or vanish altogether. The humble T-shirt (flattering to few men beyond the very fit) became ubiquitous, hiding posture and diminishing the masculine silhouette. Now every man becomes Marlon Brando or James Dean rather than who they really are, a symbol rather than a complex human being. Gender distinctions blur into androgynous defaults: leggings for all, cropped tops, and unisex everything. Modesty eroded too. Age-inappropriate dress has proliferated. Middle-aged adults wear graphic tees and sneakers in an attempt at perpetual adolescence. Revealing styles prioritize personal “expression” over privacy and restraint, turning public spaces into arenas of unpleasant exposure.

The bottom line

Status- and class-signaling underwent a deliberate homogenization. The ideology of equality saw visible hierarchies as oppressive instead of meaningful. The result today is a pseudo-democratic sameness where billionaires wear hoodies indistinguishable from baristas. This flattening disrupts social harmony and hides the person. In contrast, modern Japan retains meaningful distinctions. Male company employees wear the same black tailored suits by the millions; students and shop workers all wear uniforms, while the kimono marks seasons, ceremonies, and status. Individual flair exists within an overall structure, preserving readability, respect, and the aesthetic order. The West’s homogenization, sold as progress, has instead produced a bland sameness that does not honor individual efforts, value, or meaning within society.

The energetics of dress

What we wear shapes who we are. Clothing is not superficial. It shapes cognition and identity through “enclothed cognition.” Meditators, body workers, or the energy-sensitive realize that this does not just involve psychological patterning. Fabric, shape and form, craft and care, all impact our life in subtle and major ways. Thus research shows that wearing formal or well-fitted attire improves abstract thinking, negotiation outcomes, and self-perceived competence. On the other hand, sloppy or ill-fitting clothes reinforce carelessness. 

Self-perception theory explains the effect from a psychological as well as energetic perspective. When we dress as if nothing matters, we internalize that same message. This is then amplified by cultural trends and social feedback. Poor presentation in dress results in fewer positive relationships and interactions, which deepens this lack of motivation. Similar trends impact gender and maturity. The pervasive age-inappropriate youthful styles delay maturity or mirror developmental arrest. Clothing becomes the vehicle for the False Self, a conforming mask shaped by trends, social media, and peer pressure. 

The True Self—the core essence of values, temperament, and aspiration—requires intention and focused cultivation. A default slovenliness short-circuits this, replacing authentic expression with either apathy or rebellion. The entire energetic field of a culture, a country, is bent into these configurations, structures that echo a loss of meaning and a sacred view.

Individual and cultural causes

A wide range of forces, both cultural and spiritual, come together to create this tangled phenomenon. First is laziness and the cult of comfort. In our age of abundance and the sedentary life, immediate ease seems to beat long-term diligence time and again. Athleisure clothing promises pleasure without effort. This is compounded by a pervasive nihilism. The postmodern plague of skepticism whispers that beauty, order, and standards are arbitrary. If life lacks any inherent meaning, why bother with a collar or proper fit, or the difference between microplastic-shedding polyester and finely woven silk, cotton or wool? 

Narcissism adds a further twist. Social media encourages an exaggerated focus on self-image and inflated self-importance. Yet it proclaims the value of “authenticity” or personal whimsy over a presentation of the self that is carefully chosen based on inner harmony of one’s core being. The selfie generation demands attention while only minimally investing in a refined selfhood. Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism diagnosed this decades ago, describing a “therapeutic” culture of diminished expectations and weakened social bonds.

Underlying all this, the loss of the sacred is foundational. Secularization stripped clothing of its ritual power. Dressing for church, work, courtship or a baseball game was a secular sacrament of respect—for self, others, and institutions. Without the sacred, boundaries dissolve. Moral restraint gives way to “body positivity” while ignoring realism or personal care. Privacy soon evaporates, and public decorum fades away.

Emasculation aligns with cultural discomfort around traditional masculinity. Inappropriate dress—too youthful for age, too revealing for the setting—reflects this kind of hyper-individualism untethered from responsibility to the larger group. The homogenization of status and class arises from anxiety about fairness and equality, and visible distinctions are reframed as being judgmental. But this does not create equality. Instead it shifts to another hidden hierarchy. The wealthy and the celebrity don carefully crafted and quality fabrics, while the broader culture sinks to the lowest common visual denominator.

The impact of slovenly dress

On an individual basis, slovenly dress erodes self-esteem and motivation. The so-called “slob cascade” begins with lowering standards and ends in diminished effectiveness in one’s world. Men in perpetually soft, shapeless clothing may experience a subtle disconnection from embodied strength. Women in overly casual or revealing attire walk the line between mismatched signals of maturity and restraint. When external form defaults to stereotypes or trends, inner Essence has no faithful mirror and access to the True Self suffers.

The consequences of this individual slide ripple outward. Socially, trust weakens. Humans rely on pattern recognition, and so when everyone appears equally unkempt, the cues for reliability and competence start to blur. There is a further generational transmission here, as children learn that making an effort toward how they present themselves is merely optional. Gender and age distinctions also become foggy, which further fragments identity. 

In general, the aesthetics of the whole of society are impacted. The public square and public life become uglier, contributing to the broad spiritual malaise we see today. The supposed “democratization” of rejecting traditions proves to be illusory. Japan’s structured distinctions in dress show that hierarchy can coexist with a sense of harmony and aspiration. In contrast, homogenization masks our unique and vital differences. It actually dulls our motivation, and flattens the striving for excellence.

False equivalence

Defenders claim casual dress is a move toward freedom and authenticity. Yet freedom without restraint often leads to collective decline. Humans perceive and think through symbol, making us hardwired for visual signaling. Rejecting all judgment and pretending appearance doesn’t matter leads to a kind of naive blindness, not wisdom. “Comfort” as a core motivation will mistake pleasure-seeking for actual flourishing. True progress elevates standards rather than collapsing them. Gender-neutral homogenization is often called progressive in nature, but psychological evidence shows that structured, role-appropriate clothing supports a clearer self-concept and smoother navigation through our complex social landscape.

Modern slovenly dress represents a profound civilizational shift. Fueled by laziness, nihilism, narcissism, loss of the sacred, prison/rap influences, emasculation, erosion of boundaries, and cultural homogenization, it portrays an inner emptiness. What began as “casualization” has become a visual signature of the era of the False Self. This manifests as conformity disguised as rebellion, or comfort mistaken for liberation. This anarchistic approach tends toward chaos in society, unlike how Japan’s holds to distinctions of occasion, role, and identity. Otherwise individuals can be trapped in low-effort patterns that, in reality, reduce self-respect, social cohesion, and connection to one’s personal Essence. The result is not a greater equality or freedom, but gradual impoverishment of mind and spirit.

Mirroring the True Self

The possibility of personal change is straightforward. Dressing is a daily ritual of self-creation. Although there is already a movement of “mindful dressing” it is actually more about style and matching moods and personality than any deepening of the embodied experience. Instead, we can begin to reclaim structure. 

Men might rediscover tailored fits, well-defined shoulders, and collars that honor masculine form. One can choose garments aligned with age, context, and modesty. Moving beyond image-based stereotypes toward clothing that expresses core values, body realities, one’s temperament, and aspirations are key, and in a more developed way, we may learn to bring the Five Elements to life in our dress. This is enclothed cognition in action, where intentional choices enhance confidence and congruence with one’s unique Essence.

Clearly, our world needs to restore context-appropriate standards without some kind of puritanical mindset or rigid hierarchy. But the rituals of life are crucially important, and hardwired into our communication and visual presentation. We can be critical of “comfortism” while celebrating beauty. Individuality can flourish—without a homogenized “anything goes,” but in our unique distinctions rooted in internal truths. 

Visible status and class signals, when earned and readable, motivate the aspirations of others and clarify roles and mutual respect. Gender-appropriate and age-appropriate dress supports psychological coherence. By dressing with care, we signal respect—for ourselves, others, and the ordinary sacredness of daily life. This renaissance is not meant to be elitist or merely nostalgic. It is humanistic,  affirming that humans thrive when external form aligns with their inner dignity. 

By choosing better each day, we reverse the current of outer decay and step toward a more ordered, beautiful, and authentic existence. The clothes do not “make the man or woman,” but they powerfully shape the path toward becoming one’s True Self.

References

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Flügel, J. C. 1930. The Psychology of Clothes. London: Hogarth Press.

Kuchta, David. 2002. The Three-Piece Suit and Modern Masculinity. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Lasch, Christopher. 1979. The Culture of Narcissism. New York: Norton.

Pine, Karen. 2014. Mind What You Wear. London: Amazon Publishing.

Przybyszewski, Linda. 2014. The Lost Art of Dress. New York: Basic Books.

Slade, Toby. 2009. Japanese Fashion: A Cultural History. Oxford: Berg.

Veblen, Thorstein. 1899. The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Macmillan.

Winnicott, D.W. 1965. “Ego Distortion in Terms of True and False Self.” In The Maturational Processes and the Facilitating Environment. London: Hogarth Press.

See more

Dr. Asa Hershoff
Asa Hershoff

Related features from BDG

Why Humanity is Messed Up . . .
Befriending Impermanence
Hey You . . . Whaddaya Want?

More from The Five Wisdoms by Asa Hershoff