{"id":11724,"date":"2012-08-02T07:00:20","date_gmt":"2012-08-02T06:00:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.badreputation.org.uk\/?p=11724"},"modified":"2012-08-02T07:22:15","modified_gmt":"2012-08-02T06:22:15","slug":"office-work-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/badreputation.org.uk\/2012\/08\/02\/office-work-it\/","title":{"rendered":"Office Work It"},"content":{"rendered":"

Dress codes (the set of \u2018rules\u2019 that govern what we wear in specific situations) are present in every facet of our daily lives, whether explicitly stated or inherently assumed. For this article, there\u2019s only one dress code I want to talk about: what you wear at work.<\/p>\n

\"Promo<\/a>

Amalgamating the shop worker, flight attendant and businessman, McDonald\u2019s latest uniform incarnation is a far cry from Ronald McDonald\u2019s red and yellow clown suit.<\/p><\/div>\n

The working \u2018uniform\u2019 is ubiquitous to a huge number of professions, despite the possibility that many of us associate it first and foremost with the service industries. By service industries, I don\u2019t mean simply McDonald\u2019s workers<\/a>, Tesco employees or the like; service means serving you (the consumer) through labour. Retail fashion workers are a prime example, where the \u2018uniform\u2019 may not be a classic sweatshirt-and-trousers combo, but rather items picked solely from the collection of garments that the shop provides \u2013 living mannequins, in a sense. But this is getting way ahead of myself; let\u2019s go back a bit.<\/p>\n

Wearing a uniform, as so many sixth form debates have pointed out<\/a>, has both positive and negative effects on the individual and the group in any given institution. School uniform has the apparent benefit of making everyone equal (at least, visually) while at the same time ensuring creative idiosyncratic fashion choices are made in the smallest details; how many buttons are done up, how the tie is tied, what badges you wear and the jewellery you sneak in. Even in a photo that has been posed for this Guardian<\/strong> piece<\/a>, the same uniform turns up in many different styles. So what about the uniform at work? I\u2019ve worked in enough poorly-paid retail jobs to realise what the proposed function of a uniform is, and what actually happens when you wear it.<\/p>\n

Just like at school, a uniform is meant to show that all the wearers are equal \u2013 visually. For the consumer, workers are identified by what they are wearing; many a time I have been asked in various shops where the changing rooms are, because my particular garb is close enough to the \u2018uniform\u2019 of a retail fashion worker to confuse the consumer (although mostly this happens in charity shops. I\u2019m down with that). Workers are set apart from consumers and grouped together as labour through their uniform.<\/p>\n

However, looking the same and being the same are (duh) different. My manager and I wear the same uniform: shirt, trousers, and name badge \u2013 but are we the same? No. She\u2019s the manager<\/em>; she\u2019s my boss. Confusing messages of similarity (and potential solidarity?) and hidden hierarchies abound with the working uniform, especially in retail sectors where more than one hierarchy is on the \u2018working floor\u2019. You might be able to argue that those industries in which workers are physically grouped by hierarchy \u2013 like the factory floor, where the manager is not as physically \u2018present\u2019 as on the shop floor \u2013 are able to recognise the uniform\u2019s messages of similarity and solidarity more effectively than those where workers of disparate hierarchies are bundled in together.<\/p>\n

From Bobby Pin<\/a>, these are 1950s beauty salon uniforms:<\/p>\n

\"Black<\/a>

From a 1950s magazine, uniforms that couldn\u2019t be any more \u2018feminine\u2019: accentuating waist, hips, drawing attention to face and hairstyle. For this author, they\u2019re utterly beautiful. But then I am a total sucker for \u2018the giant coachman collar\u2019.<\/p><\/div>\n

As well as hierarchy being hidden (but strangely elaborated too, I suppose, by its hiddenness), gender too, is at least under an attempted disguise through the wearing of uniforms. Gone are the days of Mad Men<\/strong>, where women wore skirts and men wore trousers \u2013 now we all<\/em> have to wear trousers, and horrible polo shirts too. An apparently gender-neutral uniform is provided in a number of sectors (mine was previously white shirt and black trousers \u2013 or skirt) that never really successfully disguises gender to the consumer in the same way that it conceals hierarchy to some extent. One-size-fits-all doesn\u2019t work, especially if the size is designed for someone who doesn\u2019t have breasts.<\/p>\n

\"Photo<\/a>And that, my friends, neatly brings me onto those workplaces where you don\u2019t have a uniform. Or, at least, they don\u2019t tell you that you have a uniform. Explicitly, the dress code might be not much more than \u2018no shorts or clogs\u2019, but implicitly, the dress code will be bending and morphing round the individuals who are adhering to and working against it. This dress code will tie in gender and authority hierarchies, as illustrated by the business suit and its female equivalent.<\/p>\n

From my employment experience (and others who have agreed with me), men wear business suits, but women do not wear business suits, despite this (again) apparently gender-neutral \u2018uniform\u2019 being available. A number of women working in offices might wear the female equivalent of the business suit<\/a> (Next surely embodies this look), which more often than not includes a) skirt b) something frilly c) front-cover-flawless makeup. So it\u2019s the business suit, plus a) traditional emblem of femininity b) annoying and impractical emblem of femininity c) emblem of femininity that is often perceived to be caused by heavy external pressures to look good at all times. The visual \u2018uniform\u2019 of the business suit is not gender-neutral, because it is adapted to become gender-specific; whether this is due to individual taste or workplace culture, I\u2019m unsure, but it does inform the hierarchy of the office.<\/p>\n

\"Cyndi<\/a>

I. Love. Her.<\/p><\/div>The dress code in some offices (especially creative industries) is not always specified explicitly; you might not have to wear a suit, you could wear jeans whenever you please, and if you want to turn up dressed like Cyndi Lauper<\/a>, by gum you can do. However, the adage of \u2018dress for the job you want, not the job you have\u2019 rings in my ears; you can do all those things, but will doing so damage employment opportunities because you haven\u2019t adhered to the implicit dress code? Inter-departmental hierarchies are neatly displayed in adherence to or ignorance of the implicit dress code; if all the workers who were lower paid began to wear the business suits of those who are highest paid, would you be able to see a more democratic office?<\/p>\n

Rather than looking at personal comments regarding taste that may be made about office workwear, my interest instead lies in how this implicit dress code dramatically affects the hierarchical makeup of a working environment, potentially without many of the individuals involved even being fully aware of how it is being shaped around them. If I arrive tomorrow at work with a \u2018male\u2019 business suit on, will I be taken more seriously? Or, as a woman, if I arrive in a simulated version of that \u2018male\u2019 business suit, will I be declined respect because I appear too much like one of the boys? Am I feminine enough for the office if I don\u2019t wear flawless makeup \u2013 or any makeup? If I start dressing like the big boys, will they still know it\u2019s me on the inside? I believe there is a definite question of sexuality and sexual preference here that comes into play with \u2018levels\u2019 of femininity in the workplace, although I don\u2019t feel able to tackle this in great detail here (or just yet).<\/p>\n

Workplace hierarchies are constituted through a vast number of factors, but the role of dress and dress codes is one that can\u2019t be ignored. From traditional environments where gender and authority hierarchies may have been distinguished and designated by an explicit uniform placed upon the workers, contemporary working environments \u2013 especially those in the creative industries \u2013 now have to juggle with an implicit dress code that is created and defined by the workers themselves (across all hierarchies) in their clothing choices. Plus, there is the added element of workers\u2019 perception of the importance of that dress code or, conversely, the desire to play with it and break some boundaries, in designating what you can, or can\u2019t, wear to work.<\/p>\n