198 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY, 



THE ECONOMIC THEORY OF WOMAN'S DRESS. 



By Dr. THOESTEIN VEBLEN, , 



university of chicago. 



IN human apparel the element of dress is readily distinguish- 

 able from that of clothing. The two functions of dress and 

 of clothing the person are to a great extent subserved by the 

 same material goods, although the extent to which the same ma- 

 terial serves both purposes will appear very much slighter on 

 second thought than it does at first glance. A differentiation of 

 materials has long been going on, by virtue of which many things 

 that are worn for the one purpose no longer serve, and are no 

 longer expected to serve, the other. The differentiation is by no 

 means complete. Much of human apparel is worn both for phys- 

 ical comfort and for dress ; still more of it is worn ostensibly for 

 both purposes. But the differentiation is already very consider- 

 able and is visibly progressing. 



But, however united in the same object, however the two pur- 

 poses may be served by the same material goods, the purpose of 

 physical comfort and that of a reputable appearance are not to 

 be confounded by the meanest understanding. The elements of 

 clothing and of dress are distinct ; not only that, but they even 

 verge on incompatibility ; the purpose of either is frequently best 

 subserved by special means which are adapted to perform only a 

 single line of duty. It is often true, here as elsewhere, that the 

 most efficient tool is the most highly specialized tool. 



Of these two elements of apparel dress came first in order of 

 development, and it continues to hold the primacy to this day. 

 The element of clothing, the quality of affording comfort, was 

 from the beginning, and to a great extent it continues to be, in 

 some sort an afterthought. 



The origin of dress is sought in the principle of adornment. 

 This is a well-accepted fact of social evolution. But that prin- 

 ciple furnished the point of departure for the evolution of dress 

 rather than the norm of its development. It is true of dress, as 

 of so much else of the apparatus of life, that its initial purpose 

 has not remained its sole or dominant purpose throughout the 

 course of its later growth. It may be stated broadly that adorn- 

 ment, in the naive aesthetic sense, is a factor of relatively slight 

 importance in modern dress. 



The line of progress during the initial stage of the evolution of 

 apparel was from the simple concept of adornment of the person 

 by supplementary accessions from without, to the complex concept 

 of an adornment that should render the person pleasing, or of an 

 enviable presence, and at the same time serve to indicate the pos- 



