Anti-Climacus

That big piece that came out a few weeks ago, about how there has been no appreciable stylistic change in the last 20 years, seemed problematic to me for a number of reasons. In the first place, it's impossible to talk about the 20th century at all without noting a. the massive disruption caused by the Great Depression, which meant that any period of time within 20 years of the 20s or 30s (i.e. over half the century) was bound to see enormous change because of an independent, unrepeatable event and b. the U.S.'s position as sole remaining economic power after World War II, which meant an unsustainably high relative economic position, i.e. a lot of extra money to throw around on frivolous things, i.e. another independent, unrepeatable event. In the second place, I doubt the 20-year thesis would apply in any other century, even with their highly paced technological changes. In the third place, this:

In the 20th century, what’s more, that constant change in the look of hair, shoes, clothes, and makeup – what makes it possible for Andersen to distinguish easily a photo of people in the 1920s from people in the 1950s – was the byproduct of an oppressive social conformity that began with the way people had to dress. What has happened since is a successful revolution in personal freedom that has benefited women, especially. In the 1950s, my mother could never dream of wearing pants to her progressive, urban high school. It wasn’t until the mid-1960s that she finally dared to wear “slacks” in public. In my own 1970s childhood, we listened to “Free to Be You and Me,” which was all about pumping us up with the courage still needed to be ever so slightly different. I could wear pants, but I recall viscerally the terror of discovering I’d grown overnight and they’d suddenly become highwaters. Now, you can pretty much wear anything, pierce anything, tattoo anything, or shave anything, which also means you don’t have to bother.