The polemic against the tie as a “bourgeois symbol” collapses under minimal scrutiny. It is an example of rhetorical passion masking conceptual confusion — a series of aesthetic impressions mistaken for analysis.
1. Confusing Form with Essence
The writer confuses an object with an ontology. A tie has no moral quality. Its meaning depends on intention, not material. To denounce it as bureaucratic is to confuse signifier with substance — a typical modern reduction of culture to costume.
2. Historical Error
The tie did not emerge from bourgeois offices but from aristocratic and military origins. It descends from the seventeenth-century cravat, worn by Croatian mercenaries and adopted by the French nobility as a sign of rank and discipline. Its lineage is martial, not managerial. The white-collar world merely inherited it, as the bourgeoisie so often inherits the ornaments of the nobility it imitates.
3. The Romantic Fallacy of the Worker
The idealisation of peasants and miners as moral exemplars is sentimentalism disguised as realism. Hard labour is not a sacrament. Virtue is not produced by calluses any more than decadence by linen. Authenticity is an interior state, not a uniform.
4. Ideological Contradictions
The essay praises the Soviet rejection of the tie while simultaneously admiring the tunic of the soldier and the peasant’s garb. Yet the Soviet tunic and the Cossack uniform belong to opposite mythologies: one egalitarian, one hierarchical. The result is a confused fusion of Marxist asceticism and feudal romanticism — neither coherent nor credible.
5. Misdiagnosing Bureaucracy
Bureaucracy is not a wardrobe problem. The Soviet Union, which abolished bourgeois dress, produced one of history’s most suffocating bureaucracies. The vice lies in the spirit, not the fabric. Replacing ties with tunics would change nothing; the bureaucrat would simply wear a different symbol of his emptiness.
6. Aesthetic Hypocrisy
Finally, the text condemns aestheticism while indulging in it constantly. Its nostalgia for “dust and soil” is as decorative as the silk it despises. It merely reverses the vanity — preferring rustic romanticism to refinement.
Conclusion
The attack on the tie is a minor symptom of a deeper malady: the modern confusion between form and essence. The tie is neither a chain nor a halo. It can be worn by the tyrant or the saint. The moral question is not what adorns the neck, but what steadies the mind.
A civilisation will not be saved by abandoning the tie, but by rediscovering discipline, vocation, and purpose beneath whatever garments it chooses to wear.
“The tie is the flag of the administration man, not the armour of the warrior...”
Warriors have had ceremonial uniforms predating western civilization. For example Greek hoplites and Roman officers had parade armor, cloaks and tunics that weren’t for combat. Indian warriors had ceremonial turbans. The Akkadians had decorated robes and helmets.
It might be? The necktie actually did originate from warriors – it was first seen in the uniform of Croat mercenaries during the Thirty Years’ War in the 1700s.
The polemic against the tie as a “bourgeois symbol” collapses under minimal scrutiny. It is an example of rhetorical passion masking conceptual confusion — a series of aesthetic impressions mistaken for analysis.
1. Confusing Form with Essence
The writer confuses an object with an ontology. A tie has no moral quality. Its meaning depends on intention, not material. To denounce it as bureaucratic is to confuse signifier with substance — a typical modern reduction of culture to costume.
2. Historical Error
The tie did not emerge from bourgeois offices but from aristocratic and military origins. It descends from the seventeenth-century cravat, worn by Croatian mercenaries and adopted by the French nobility as a sign of rank and discipline. Its lineage is martial, not managerial. The white-collar world merely inherited it, as the bourgeoisie so often inherits the ornaments of the nobility it imitates.
3. The Romantic Fallacy of the Worker
The idealisation of peasants and miners as moral exemplars is sentimentalism disguised as realism. Hard labour is not a sacrament. Virtue is not produced by calluses any more than decadence by linen. Authenticity is an interior state, not a uniform.
4. Ideological Contradictions
The essay praises the Soviet rejection of the tie while simultaneously admiring the tunic of the soldier and the peasant’s garb. Yet the Soviet tunic and the Cossack uniform belong to opposite mythologies: one egalitarian, one hierarchical. The result is a confused fusion of Marxist asceticism and feudal romanticism — neither coherent nor credible.
5. Misdiagnosing Bureaucracy
Bureaucracy is not a wardrobe problem. The Soviet Union, which abolished bourgeois dress, produced one of history’s most suffocating bureaucracies. The vice lies in the spirit, not the fabric. Replacing ties with tunics would change nothing; the bureaucrat would simply wear a different symbol of his emptiness.
6. Aesthetic Hypocrisy
Finally, the text condemns aestheticism while indulging in it constantly. Its nostalgia for “dust and soil” is as decorative as the silk it despises. It merely reverses the vanity — preferring rustic romanticism to refinement.
Conclusion
The attack on the tie is a minor symptom of a deeper malady: the modern confusion between form and essence. The tie is neither a chain nor a halo. It can be worn by the tyrant or the saint. The moral question is not what adorns the neck, but what steadies the mind.
A civilisation will not be saved by abandoning the tie, but by rediscovering discipline, vocation, and purpose beneath whatever garments it chooses to wear.
Us folks in the blue collars see ties for what they are, and when appropriate. We will wear them also. So a contextual consideration ought to be made.
Its not referred to as an "obedience knot" by our elders for nothing.
Thanks for your great work!
We've shared this link on 'The Stacks'
https://askeptic.substack.com/p/the-stacks
“The tie is the flag of the administration man, not the armour of the warrior...”
Warriors have had ceremonial uniforms predating western civilization. For example Greek hoplites and Roman officers had parade armor, cloaks and tunics that weren’t for combat. Indian warriors had ceremonial turbans. The Akkadians had decorated robes and helmets.
Is this satire?
It might be? The necktie actually did originate from warriors – it was first seen in the uniform of Croat mercenaries during the Thirty Years’ War in the 1700s.