The Fall of Public Man

Much as we went beyond Reich’s own perspectives to reflect on the armor that is found in society—as a way of exploring the armor to be found among 21^st Century men and women—so we will go beyond Feldenkrais’s analysis to explore an element of human behavior to be found in society. In this case we first turn back to the way people related to one another at an earlier period of time. In The Fall of Public Man. Richard Sennett (1976) writes about the shift in human behavior and non-verbal expressions that occurred in European society several centuries ago. These shifts relate directly to what Feldenkrais has to say about the influence of human functions and bodily movement on our sense of self and society.

For many years, the condition of European cities was deplorable. Sewage ran in the streets (which were nothing more than muddy wastelands of filth and disease). The bodies of those living in these conditions were constantly being challenged. Men wore hats and walked with their women folk on the curb side of the street because inhabitants of the rooms located in the buildings beside them were pitching their waste products out the window and onto the street (and hats) below. Human movement was being strongly influenced by life on the streets.

Under these conditions, there was no need to “dress up” when going outside. Rather, formal wear was reserved for “at home” living. Men, women and children wore their fine clothes at home and presented their refined manners at home. Thus “private man” was refined. They left their courser behavior for the streets outside—where a primitive battle was being engaged between their own health and the pollution to which they were exposed.

Contrasting with “private man”, “public man” was crude and less restrained. Reich would say that the character armor was reserved for domestic life during these times. Feldenkrais would say that the freedom to act in public was a source of anxiety-reduction (as compared to the limits to action required in the home). The Jungians would concur that the “persona” was most consistently engaged at home and that the “persona’ was less restrictive in public.

According to Sennett, this all changed with improvement in the conditions of European cities (as well as shifts in numerous other conditions of European societies). Folks began to dress up when going outside and dressed in a more informal manner when at home. They were suddenly less restricted in their movements when in their own domestic setting. Feldenkrais would suggest that this might have changed the very way in which these “private” men and women viewed themselves and the outside world.

We see this at an extreme during the second half of the twentieth century, with the common attire at home often being sweatpants. This looser and more comfortable clothing allowed not only for the abandonment of restrictive armor (dressing formally), but also for the opportunity for free action and exercise (after all, “sweatpants” were initially intended for exercise and athletic endeavors). By contrast, as we have already noted, the office attire became suits, ties, pants suits and finely styled hair. In the twenty first century, as we have also noted, the options have expanded with “casual Fridays”, work at home, and digital communication. Do we find that “casual” attire and “casual” behavior results in “casual” thought and feelings?

Richard Sennett wants us to remain for a little while in an era when public man became more formal and ceased to be the less protected, hat-wearing citizen of an earlier era. He noted that there was one sector of European society that remained quite open, unprotected and devoted to dramatic activity: this was the actor in theater (and later movies). This person not only exposed the vulnerability of mankind in the roles he/she played on stage, but also was “victim” of exposes of their real life. They were subject to public scandals (“acting out”) as extensively conveyed in newspapers and other printed tabloids (and later radio and television).