Figure 1.--T
|
Figure 1.--T |
Succinctly, I grew up in America during the 1950s, my kismet then to be sent to exclusive Catholic boys’ schools until I began university. How this relates to the subject here concerns the uniform at the prep school I was obligated to attend as a youth— namely, its short pants. To understand why this would be an issue noteworthy, indulge me to begin with some brief annotation. In the interest of discretion and propriety, identifying names and locations will be left unmentioned. Re the school: Simply, it was the kind of status institution that catered to patrician families; a day academy for boys grades 6-9/ages 11-15; operated out of a mansion bequeathed for the purpose in the city’s old-money neighborhood; run by a religious order of brothers. Of note in this regard, like several of my classmates, my parents were neither Catholic or rich, just very “upwardly mobile,” as they say today, and the prestige of having a son at this school was a “must” for them despite of the cost. Anyway, while all this predictably would have made this school generally perceived about town as being one of “those” schools, it was its uniforms that made its public repute there then “notorious.”
Succinctly, I grew up in America during the 1950s, my kismet then to be sent to exclusive Catholic boys’ schools until I began university.
I did not attend public or state schools until I went to universities. Except for uniforms as required by those schools then, I normally dressed in the typical fashions for boys of the period. Yes, I knew about the shorts uniforms at this school before I went there. As I mention, being the only school in the city then having such uniforms, it had a "notorious" reputation for them, which understandably made students loath to the idea of going there; the "shock" was in becoming inured to them. Except when a very small boy, my parents did not dress me in shorts outfits and did not insist on my wearing shorts attire otherwise afterwards; "dressing up" in normal suits was then only as was proper for social occasions.
How this relates to the subject here concerns the uniform at the prep school I was obligated to attend as a youth— namely, its short pants. To understand why this would be an issue noteworthy, indulge me to begin with some brief annotation. In the interest of discretion and propriety, identifying names and locations will be left unmentioned. Re the school: Simply, it was the kind of status institution that catered to patrician families; a day academy for boys grades 6-9/ages 11-15; operated out of a mansion bequeathed for the purpose in the city’s old-money neighborhood; run by a religious order of brothers.
Of note in this regard, like several of my classmates, my parents were neither Catholic or rich, just very “upwardly mobile,” as they say today, and the prestige of having a son at this school was a “must” for them despite of the cost. Anyway, while all this predictably would have made this school generally perceived about town as being one of “those” schools, it was its uniforms that made its public repute there then “notorious.”
Re uniforms: Notwithstanding the (contentious) revival of interest concerning school uniforms in America presently, they have not ever proven generally popular and never have been a convention here. However, they have usually been “de rigueur” at parochial and at exclusive private schools. While American boys (or girls) donned in any kind of dressy uniformed attire then (as I’m sure it still does) would be seen in public (both admiringly and snidely) as being “preppies” or “rich kids,” with respect to my school in question here, what made this distinctiveness so then a droll sensation chagrining for its students was its uniforms obligatory short pants.
Addendum: This was the only educational institution in the city then to have such a uniform (and the only school I ever attended that did as not even posh elementary school boys there then wore shorts; which made one’s first having to don them attending this school a rather memorable experience). This school’s wardrobe was (pretentiously) modeled after the classic British gray school shorts livery; however, without their traditional emblematic accouterments, and having thigh-high style shorts, though worn with conventional knee-socks. While having these singularly short shorts was a school requisite, it moreover was overall favored (especially by mothers, naturally) as being thought more “dashing” (as, frankly, it is).
I notice a HBC reader in the "Reader Comments" section mentioned the movie "Toy Tiger". It was a delightful film and one I identified with. However, as mentioned, the shorts of our uniforms were quite more trim. Although a number of the students at this school were chauffeured, myself and many of my peers went by public transportation. Yes, it often made for angst, but also good experiences.
Anyway, what made short pants such an issue was that they were virtually outré as a fashion for boys in America then. The old custom of dressing boys in outfits with short trousers went out with World War II in the States and the prevalent attitude then became one that would get a boy wearing shorts as normal daily dress certainly thought called a “sissy”. In my area of the country then, it was “cool” for the female gender to go in shorts, but “real” boys, not to mention men, wore at the least slacks or jeans—-long ones. (Interesting how things have changed in this regard today, though I have to say I find the current “in” styles re boys/men’s shorts tasteless. But I digress.) Thus, that my classmates and I being daily in shorts there then would be an “issue” (especially for us) was as inevitable as ineluctable. Understandably, this made for my/our having experiences more meaningful than just being made to feel self-conscious. And so, to wit: -
Firstly: Given all the recent scandals involving Catholic schools, that this school’s uniform policy (together with how it facilitated the method of corporal punishment practiced there) will likely be viewed askance by many as being “suspect” and so beg the question, let me state here straight away: No one was ever molested or abused at this school. The corporal punishment was limited to a summary “chastening” before the class of having your thighs whacked with a belt or ruler (happening whenever the brother teaching deemed a student did something to “earn” it). But regardless, even with this in addition to the uniform issue, everything at this school was strictly prim and proper in every way. Period.
True, it would seem evident neither the school nor parents could have been oblivious as to what the affect/effect then would be of having their students/sons dressed in shorts, so that it was nevertheless done and approved of was, as it would seem, arbitrarily aberrant and inconsiderate re us. Yet, even though it may sound implausible, in their mentality it was not seen as or intended to be demeaning or mean.
The school’s ostensible reason for having this quaint shorts uniform policy was “tradition,” but maintaining adolescents barelegged was also averred as the “ideal” way of “building character” in them (by “fostering docility,” “instilling respect,” “begetting humility,” “teaching self-control,” “promoting hardiness”). Despite how this way’s rationales might be construed or assessed in view of modern perspective, they actually believed this “righteous” as a practice for this purpose (and strangely enough, I and many of my classmates then came to realize it was indeed so, and in more ways than one). Indubitably, the brothers (and most parents of students there) thought this shorts uniform both proper and smart. As to their thoughts re it influencing other schools to do the same, I cannot say, although I don't think it was much of a consideration..
That my/our parents assented to if not openly supported this uniform policy was not really that unusual then considering the general conservative mindset of their society. One of the things this school prided itself on was its “adherence to the old-fashioned values,” which naturally made it appealing to such people; being one of the main reasons why they sent their sons there. Most fathers principally agreed with these uniforms alleged “character building” virtues; most mothers, of course, essentially liking how “cute” their sons looked in such shorts (which, admittedly, most of us did, as most boys do). Though mothers were sympathetic, they acquiesced to the corporal punishment since it was for being “naughty”; fathers thought it a good way to “teach a lesson.” Needless to say, I suppose, we students had no vote on this.
As to the affect/effect of this re my classmates, and myself: It was both as predictable as unexpected. Certainly, there was the inescapable indignation, humiliation and teasing our being in shorts caused us, but some rather surprising and nice happenings also resulted.
We developed a novel esprit de corps that made wearing our shorts a kind of badge of courage, so managing the pluck to smugly shrug-off sarcastic leers and retort smartly to mocking jeers (even to provocatively flaunting our legs with condescending humor). But it was the (unexpected) approving looks and complements we also got due to our appearance that really made the difference in our positive inurnment to our predicament, for while these naturally made us blush they were also inwardly quite elating, when they came from other then our mothers and old ladies. The ones from young women and girls being delighting if embarrassing, the ones from men and even a few other boys intriguingly as bemusing as amusing.
In any case, you were never without self-conscious emotion, even when out of public eye together in classes, due to the natural corollary of our shorts briefness keeping you ever mindful of yourself. (This affect/effect was understood purposeful; being kept so aware was how this way taught “humility” and “self-control.”) Since you were required to be in full shorts uniform at all times, regardless – not only to attend daily classes but also to be present at all the many school extracurricular events and sponsored functions – you were maintained so “mindful” more often then not most of the year. (This was likewise intended: to keep you always attentive re your attitude and behavior, as well as cognizant of your still regarded juvenile status). Being kept in shorts thus was doable owing to our location’s mild climate (nonetheless, the brisk breezes of our winters did ensure “hardiness.”)
However, the most ironically curious affect/effect of this for myself and at least several of my close classmates then – certainly the most meaningfully surprising and wondrous happening for us – was that, quite to our mystified delight, we actually came to like going in our shorts. Ingenuously, it was the sensuality of it, the sense of freedom and exhilaration the invigoration of having your legs so exposed gave. Purely, it felt good and we liked the way we looked having our legs tanned, and the admiring attention it also resulted in for us only made it all the more enjoyable; and exciting, albeit sometimes awkwardly so. But moreover, this approbation likewise made even the apprehension of being so exhibited curiously exciting, so heartening us even more (albeit some might think perversely so).
We never expressed these feelings to anyone then except among ourselves, of course, but our penchant was still discernible by our tacit wanting to as well as wearing our shorts even when we didn’t actually have to. In fact, when we all graduated into high schools (and so then to wear only long trousers publicly) we found we missed having our “excuse” to go in shorts, and continued to don them alone and together in private until we went our separate ways off to colleges. (I still enjoy wearing shorts, when it’s seemly for a man my age now to do so.)
I suppose analysts will conclude their patent explanations for all this, and so be it. I can only say about it what I have here, which are forthright comments if nothing else. In any case, I will not argue the “right”/”wrong” and/or “good”/”bad” of this way of “education.” Granted, given the conditions, it was not exactly nice, and I suppose some students did develop “problems” over it. Conversely, as evinced by what I have said, I can hardly say it was anything like iniquitous or harmful. Indeed, I hesitate to add here in closing that myself and my close classmates at least even came to meaningfully understand and appreciate the avowed “character building” benefits of this way (which would seem to validate that it does actually “work” for this purpose, regardless).
Still, being a libertarian at heart, I’m ambivalent about advocating this way, at least as an imposed practice. Even so, I must admit I do champion the idea of classic-style uniforms with properly brief shorts being the standard convention for all schoolboys everywhere through adolescence, if for no other reason than just the sake of aesthetics. Simply, this “archetypal schoolboy” attire is the kind of clothing a youth looks most fitting and handsome in. This is not just my notion. Many studies have shown that even where such dress has never been the custom, the impression of the image is nonetheless largely regarded as being both most admired and desired. Which raises the question of why, then, has such attire as the convention for boys and youths become virtually extinct? But that is another subject. Anyhow, I realize any serious expectations of making this ideal of dress for boys widely accepted again are, alas, wishful thinking. May the gods preserve those schools/places still left that have the sense and fortitude to maintain this noble tradition.
I found George's discussion of his Catholic school experience, grades 6 - 9 interesting. I want to ask what were his previous school experiences? Did he attend public schools? What kinds of clothes did he wear when he was younger? Did he know anything about the Catholic school and its uniform before he was enrolled there? Did his parents insist on his dressing up or wearing shorts when he was younger? If not, the school uniform no doubt came as quite a shock. My thoughts are that the brothers at the Catholic school chose that uniform because they really thought it a proper outfit for their students, and that other schools would do well to follow their lead. They probably wanted their school to follow in the traditions of the British schools whose scholl uniform they so evidently admired! Reading George's essay reminds me of the film, "Toy Tiger", set at a private boys' school with a similar required uniform. The film, released in 1956, would be from the same era that George was at the Catholic school. Those smart little uniforms were most uncommon in that day. I wonder how George went to and from school. If he had to take public transportation, like a bus or a subway, that would be enough to induce a state of fear in most boys dressed in that uniform. Apparently, George had his share of comments, good and bad, from onlookers.
As HBC has noted, being dressed unlike one's peers is bad enough for most kids to endure. Being dressed in well-worn, even tattered clothes, or clothes that are a little out of style makes a child feel sufficiently conspicuous. Being dressed up, or "dolled up", in new, expensive, and dressy clothes makes a boy stand out from the regulars. But being dressed up in stylish clothes that appear juvenile is humiliating. Not as bad, surely, as that nightmare of legend - finding yourself in school dressed in nothing but your underwear or au naturel - but it's close." George has responded to these questions which HBC has inserted in the text above.
Related Chronolgy Pages in the Boys' Historical Web Site
[Main Chronology Page]
[The 1900s]
[The 1910s]
[The 1920s]
[The 1930s]
[The 1940s]
[The 1950s]
[The 1960s]
[The 1970s]
[The 1980s]
[The 1990s]
[The 2000s]
Navigate the Boys' Historical Clothing School Uniform Pages
[Main U.S. individual school experiences page]
[Main U.S. School Uniform page]
[Australia]
[England]
[France]
[Germany]
[Ireland]
[Italy]
[Japan]
[New Zealand]
[Poland]
[Singapore]
[Scotland]
[Singapore]
Navigate the Boys' Historical Clothing Web Page
[Introduction]
[Activities]
[Biographies]
[Chronology]
[Clothing styles]
[Countries]
[Bibliographies]
[Contributions]
[FAQs]
[Glossaries]
[Images]
[Links]
[Registration]
[Tools]
[Boys' Clothing Home]
