World Monitor Magazine WM_Energy 2017 - Page 53

style carriers of not only the idea of service, but also modesty, including clothing. What clothes did they wear? In mass it is the simplest of coarse homespun cloths, which symbolized the refusal of pleasures in the name of service, the acceptance of one's path and one's duties, the readiness to become a small part of the large mass, and most often it was gray. That is the reason why in the depths of the collective unconscious, the gray suit is a symbol of 'service', worthy of respect . So, putting on a habitual gray suit, which we often complain about for its ‘boredom’, just remember that its story goes back to our ancestors. which logically led to the fact that it was used to color the most expensive fabrics, making purple clothes the prerogative of the very top of the social ladder, a symbol of wealth and power. Just imagine: to get one gram of dye required to catch about one ton or 330 thousand mollusks. Rich Egyptians from the time of Ramses wore clothes of the colour of clotted blood, and in ancient Rome and Greece only emperors, commanders and judges had the right to wear purple togas. Alexander of Macedon not only wore garments of purple, but also ordered to cover his throne with a purple cloth, and even the ink of his personal inkwell traveling with him during his famous campaigns was a purple colour – the colour of power and wealth. How did the colour of the state's administrative apparatus clothing change over the centuries? The general trend – the movement from wealth (according to the splendid outfits of officials at the court of French Ludoviks people judged the scale of embezzlement of one or another person, the same situation was at the court of Russian empresses) to modesty (remember Novoseltsev from the ‘Office Romance’). In addition, the growth of the states’ territories, the complication of the administrative apparatus, the fragmentation of it into various departments and administrations have dictated their dress code requirements. The basic functions of any uniform that still governed were clearly formed: unifying – to show belonging to a certain professional environment, and signal-distinctive – to highlight, show the level of hierarchy within this environment. Do not forget that alongside the authorities there has always been a religion, one of the most powerful institutions of influence on the minds and behavior of people (albeit spiritual). The idea of any religion is the transfer of wisdom, laws of spiritual development, postulates and commandments of behavioral manifestations ("do not steal," "respect the elders," "honor the parents," "help the weak," etc.). And of course, in the mass of its ministers of religion were The second powerful force of any state apparatus, apart from religion, has always been the military: the squad, troops and army. Often the presence of an excellent army was much more important for strengthening the authority of the leader than religion. As a rule, a state leader was – and this tradition is still preserved – also the supreme military commander-in-chief. That's why, although the design of state officials’ costumes was diverse, there were constant elements originating in key sources of uniforms – a clergymen's dress, a military uniform: a strict costume cut from a military uniform as a symbol of willingness to make decisions often in difficult situations, and restrained costume colors. Undoubtedly, everyone is free to draw their conclusions from the above, but such a rich history of uniforms is first and foremost a reason to be proud of one’s profession: for millennia it is in demand with its ability to influence decision-making and responsibility, show off intellect and will. And of course, it needs to reflect style: discreet and balanced, emphasizing the strengths of everyone. supported by EUROBAK 51