A friend of mine and frequent contributor of questions for this blog to answer read a rather overheated blog entry [1] that sought to condemn the necktie as being pagan and purely sexual in origin. As is often the case, there is a little bit of truth but far more error in the presentation, but in order to understand the importance of the tie and its meaning we must understand also its original context within military history. To be honest, neither ties nor military history are something that are commonly thought about as belonging in the same conversation [2], but their connection reveals deeper questions about the influence of militarism on behavior, and manages to explain the reason why ties are gendered in their present usage which has been so widely separated from its original context, if not completely. An understanding of the martial context of neckties both presents their current legitimacy, while also pointing to the reasons why they remain contentious in present society.

As in many other areas of life [3], we owe the tie and its place in our behavior to the French. It all began in the Thirty Year’s War, when Croatian mercenaries hired by the French to fight against the perfidious Hapsburg dynasty in Germany wore their traditional knotted handkerchiefs, which caught the interest of the fashion-conscious Parisians, which encouraged the young king to copy their example. Fairly quickly, there were parallel developments with regards to ties. On one track we have its continued use in military contexts, where the tie served to give some protection to vulnerable necks from saber slashes or bayonet thrusts and encouraged a highly martial posture. On the other track we have the tie, often in elaborate fashion, being viewed as an encouragement of flamboyant identity. Even as late as the 20th century, there was a continued tension between the tie as a sign of uniformity and conformity, of being part of a unit, whether military or corporate or religious, and the tie as a sign of flamboyant masculinity and unconventionality [4].

The tie’s ready adoption both for its practical benefits in encouraging the head to remain up in a good posture as well as for its signification of masculine prowess and virility in such areas of life as warfare, business, and religion have made it a contentious issue among some. Those who dislike the association between men and authority (or even presence) in worlds of warfare, business, and religion attack the tie as a sign of male oppression, even though the tie tends to oppress the wearer of the tie far more than others who are merely looking at the person wearing the tie. As is often the case, clothing, like everything else, carries on a deeper political significance, and is subject to all of the ridiculous Freudian symbolism that has infected so many other parts of modern culture, as well as the general state of contentiousness and conflict about gender within society. The practical use of ties as a sign that someone has mastered enough fine motor skill to tie, the fact that it used to be of worth in protecting the neck in warfare and encouraging a uniform martial bearing, and the fact that it remains useful as a way of pointing out those who are willing to play by the rules and those who do not means that it will likely remain a sign for some time to come, given the fact that so few items of male clothing have remained consistent for the centuries that the tie has lasted.

In many ways, ties are a part of conversation, and mean far more than meets the eye, though sometimes not exactly what meets the mind’s eye. Their initial popularity was likely due to their being exotic and foreign, and early on their association with martial prowess ensured that they would be a signifier of male virility even if that was not their original intent. The tension between practical benefit, including the sending of the right social signals that one is a gentleman of elegance and worthy status, and the way that the tie or its absence can express personal preferences and worldviews means that, like everything else, we are sure to fight about it as long as we fight about male identity and its expression. While most of us have no need of protecting our necks from the attacks of wandering cavalry, we still want to send the right message to other people, and as long as we do, many of us will be wearing ties at least some of the time, so long as it sends the message we wish to send to the world at large.

[1] http://minmintie.blogspot.com/2008/08/necktie-as-a-phallic-symbol.html

[2] See, for example:

The Curious Connection Between Jane Austen And Military History

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/may-day-the-curious-connection-between-paganism-and-socialism/

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/the-curious-connection-between-history-and-prophecy/

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2010/12/10/the-curious-connection-betweenjane-austen-and-military-history/

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2013/08/09/although-your-dominion-is-small-the-curious-connection-between-abraham-lincoln-and-san-marino/

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2015/06/20/book-review-how-to-tie-a-tie/

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2015/07/16/twenty-four-tieclips/

[3] See, for example:

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2015/04/19/venite-ad-me-omnes-qui-stomacho-laboratis-et-ego-vos-restaurabo/

[4] See, for example:

“http://academia-cravatica.hr/hr/. Academia-cravatica.hr.

Pendergast, Sara; Tom Pendergast; Sarah Hermsen (2004).Fashion, Costume, and Culture. Clothing, Headwear, Body Decorations, and Footwear Through the Ages. Detroit: UXL. pp. 950–951. ISBN 0-7876-5422-1.

Roetzel, Bernhard (1999). Gentleman: a timeless fashion. Könemann. p. 72. ISBN 3-8290-2029-5.

Chaille, François (1994). La grande histoire de la cravate. Paris: Flammarion. ISBN 2-08-201851-2.