Quakers have as one of our core values the testimony of "Simplicity." This applies to everything from the way we spend our money to the kind of cars we drive. In particular though, this simplicity has been most manifested by the traditional form of dress associated with Quakers, i.e. "The Quaker Oats Man."
Historically, Quakers have tried to set themselves apart from others by wearing more modest, simple clothing, what we called "Plain Dress." Now that Quakers are getting more active in virtual spaces like Second Life, how does our testimony of Simplicity and Plain Dress translate in this electronic realm?
"Plain Dress" is often associated, even among Quakers, with wearing gray. This actually was not always the norm, sometimes brown, tan, black or even red being the preferred Plain Dress colors. The Quaker Oat man appears in black, which was not often an "approved" Plain Dress color since black fabric was so expensive and faded quickly.
For women, Plain Dress usually meant a simple dress with no outward adornment like fancy buttons, piping or trim, a plain shawl, and a bonnet. For men, it was a simple suit and a broad-brimmed hat.
Today only a small percentage of Quakers practice this form of "radical" Plain Dress. Many other Quakers realized that strict Plain Dress in itself could be seen as a form of pride and ostentation, since it makes you stand out from the crowd in any modern environment. But still many Quakers practice some form of Plain Dress, whether it is simply abstaining from the latest, expensive fashion fads or wearing the most utilitarian clothing for whatever they are doing.
In the virtual world, there are no clear guides or precedents. My Second Life avatar, for the cost of a few pennies, can wear what appears to be an Armani suit, with blinged-out rings, necklace and watch. Does that make me ostentatious or just one of the crowd of similarly kipped out newbies?
I could wear traditional Plain Dress, as some SL Quakers have opted to try and do. You can even head over to the Quaker church in SL (Quaker (155, 22, 31) and purchase your very own Quaker-ish hat or bonnet for a few linden bucks. But is that really the point of the testimony of Simplicity? Or would you just look like just another SL role-player?
I don’t know any easy answers to these questions. For me, the testimony of Simplicity is not so much about my outward appearance. It’s about not letting my thoughts and desires around these material and virtual possessions supercede my quest to be a more loving, centered, spirit-led person, in whatever world I happen to be inhabiting.
Plain dress in sl, very interesting. I’ve always thought the doctrine of simplicity, derived from equality, is less about promoting simplicity per se, then about making everyone feel comfortable with themselves as human beings. While I would not argue that ostentatiousness would be appropriate in sl under the doctrine of simplicity, i think the idea that you point out about plain dress becoming symbolic in sl. To me, once it becomes symbolic, it is no longer simple, it is on the other hand a projection of identity and difference. Plain dress should, I’ve thought, not encourage you to make those projections of difference because its goal, in my mind, is the projection of equality through its simplicity. But i’m clearly not doctrinaire, just a person that identifies as quaker if pushed, though i also identify as humanist and other ists, so ehh.
Interesting point about equality.
I think Plain Dress was appropriate for a simpler time when unity among Friends was best represented with everyone having a similar appearance. In general, 300 years ago, there wasn’t much variety in people’s dress in the US or England!
Now that Friends are more embracing of diversity, it makes sense for this to be reflected in the varieties of dress seen at our meetings. Who wants to go to a Meeting where everyone looks the same?
yah, i’d prefer more that everyone is comfortable with their equality. dress how you like, with a care to others in mind.
Unfortunately, SL has a terrible lack of clothing, shapes, and skins which are well made, modest and tasteful. When several of us were lamenting this state, the idea of historical plain dress came up. Soon after, we met somebody who is talented at creating modest clothing, and it seemed like a great match for our exploration. We expected this to bring up these types of questions, and are happy to have this dialog. Trying to define what is “costume” and what is “real” is quite confusing in SL. As the seamstress completes the line of clothing, hopefully this discussion will deepen, and further insight into the plain dress testimony will be discovered.
I think you raise some good questions! What is the meaning of “simplicity” and “plainness” anyway in SL?
As Asha mentioned above, the original motivation was that there was a severe lack of well made, tasteful, modest clothing in SL. While “everyone” can “wear” a Armani Suit – one can wonder what the point might be? And many well made clothing would be horribly tacky and over-adorned if realized in real life.
One thing is in my mind – if you (in RL or SL) wear clothing as a “costume” it is falling into a trap of “empty forms.” While one could argue this is the POINT of avatars in second life, it begs the question – is it possible to dress in tasteful, well made, unadorned clothing and not be in a costume of sorts? Are we supposed to set an example for others (and if so, how?) or are we supposed to ‘purify’ ourselves? If one wants to be “simple” and “plain” it seems that any adornments must be an expression of truth somehow, and how could one achieve this in the SL medium?
I found it curious that when walking through a few sims with the hat and some other clothing I assembled, it seemed to remind people of things that Quakers have traditionally promoted. These reactions were achieved by just by wearing the clothing with the title “Quaker.” I do not know what that would mean in a higher way – though it certainly didn’t separate us from the people that we met – which is part of the issue that discredited Plain Clothes in the early 20th century? I suppose this will be threshed out in the meetings – in RL and SL.
(One could also ask about “violence” and “pacifism” in a place where death is only simulated and not very well! And what is Slavery when it is done by consent and breaks apart when it stops being “fun” for both parties.)
I am glad this is a discussion point that, with any luck, is in the minds of many. This subject comes up again and again in SL. Thanks for highlighting it in your blog!
I once returned a message on our Meeting’s answering machine from a woman who had wanted to attend a Quaker meeting for a very long time. She had hesitated because she enjoyed to wear jewelry and accessorizing her outfits. She was concerned that, even thoough most of it was costume jewelry, she would not be welcomed at the meeting if she wore it.
I assured her she was welcome to come, jewelry and all and that no one would judge her based on it. But it makes me wonder how many people, just hearing snigglits of info about Quakers, such as plain dress, might be put off from even making a call.
I once returned a message on our Meeting’s answering machine from a woman who had wanted to attend a Quaker meeting for a very long time. She had hesitated because she enjoyed wearing jewelry and accessorizing her outfits. She was concerned that, even though most of it was costume jewelry, she would not be welcomed at the meeting if she wore it.
I assured her she was welcome to come – jewelry and all, and that no one would judge her based on it. But it makes me wonder how many people, just hearing snigglits of info about Quakers (such as plain dress), might be put off from even making a call.