Wednesday, June 24, 2009
An Unmarked Car
(Whether that's still true for women, I'll leave to the collective wisdom of my wise and worldly readers.)
There was enough truth to that for it to stick with me. At work, I can wear, say, a gray suit, and be both situationally appropriate and utterly impersonal. On dress down days, the alternate uniform of tie-less Oxford and khakis (or a close variant) gets the job done. There's nothing terribly interesting about either ensemble, but that's precisely the point. I don't have to think about them, and neither does anybody else. They're like driving unmarked cars. I go where I want without calling undue attention to myself.
Except that they aren't. Over the last couple of weeks, on three separate occasions, I've run into people from the college out in the world, and they've all had the same reaction. "I didn't recognize you without the suit."
Hmm. If the markings were truly neutral, that wouldn't happen.
Uniforms carry meanings of their own, of course. Although it's somewhat dated, I still sometimes hear Administration referred to as "the suits." (For the record, academics don't wear suits quite the way businesspeople do. On the milder side, we blow off the "button-down collars are for sport jackets" rule, which is fine by me. On the more severe side, well, let's just say that some of us need Garanimals sewn into our clothes, and some have apparently never heard of 'ironing.') But even allowing for that, it's still striking to be told, repeatedly and in apparent sincerity, that the suit simply erases the person. I can't blame on it what I was wearing in civilian life, either -- it's not like I put on a spiky Goth number and pasted a Mohawk toupee over the bald spot. I was just dressed like a suburban dad, which, in fact, I am.
The civilian clothes carry markings of their own, admittedly. At TG's preschool graduation, I saw another Dad in a jumpsuit with his name sewn on a patch. I was doing the Oxford-and-khakis thing. It wasn't hard to guess who had the office job. But even allowing for that, it's not like I was somehow out of character when I wasn't recognized.
There's unmarked, and then there's unmarked. The late Mitch Hedberg once theorized that the reason all those photos of Bigfoot are blurry is that Bigfoot himself was blurry. Maybe the clothes carry meaning, and I'm just indistinct.
Wise and worldly readers -- has something like this happened to you?
But I think your experience doesn't mean you're not unmarked, I think perhaps men have generally two different kinds of unmarked - suit, and khakis and button down. Maybe?
clearly all clothes carry meaning about position, class, and persona. but mens clothes are less about sex.
incidently have you read Paul Fussell's "Uniforms"? It is very light reading, but interesting
Though it's awesome when you do.
On a completely different note, I'm just glad to say that where I work suits on admins are not the norm, from the president on down. I can wear slacks and a blouse with or without jacket/sweater on almost any day and be fine. I ride my bike to school some days and honestly no one seems shocked to see me walking to my office in shorts and a t-shirt. I'm suspecting there's some regional stuff thrown into the mix, as well.
Its a form of cognitive dissonance. "What are you doing in a grocery store?"
It's more a statement than anything else, a nod to the fact that I should be serious about the jobs I have influence over.
Well, keeping in mind that for men it's either pants or shorts, if the weather is warm then shorts make sense. Sure they're very informal, but the wardrobe doesn't have any other choices.
Women have a dressier option that's cooler than pants. I'm not surprised a lot take it.