-- FarayiMafoti - 17 Apr 2010

In Thorstein Veblen's piece Theory of the Leisure Class he argues how principles of pecuniary repute find expression in dress. Specifically, he contends that “in the common run of cases the conscious motive of the wearer or purchaser of conspicuously wasteful apparel is the need of conforming to established usage, and of living up to the accredited standard of taste” (Ch. 7). For most women, he explains, the coveting of decency is given expression through debilitating garb. The corset, the bonnet, and the high heel are mechanically impairing, making “even the simplest and most necessary manual work extremely difficult.” The effect of this general disregard for comfort is that, in theory, it reinforces Victorian classifications regarding women’s economic dependency. In this essay, I will apply this characterization of feminine sartorial display to an article I unearthed at FindLaw? entitled “Business Casual Attire for Lawyers,” which addresses legal “business casual” rules for men and women in white-shoe firms.

With the advent of companies allowing employees to wear jeans to work, law firms also began to institute a business casual initiative, presumably to increase employee comfort and, as the article suggests, make attorneys “able to fit in with clients.” The article makes three demarcations – upper body, lower body, and accessories – and then posits rules of fashion governing each part. For example, for the upper body category, men are authorized to come to work tie-less, brandishing a short-sleeve shirt or polo while women are admonished that too-tight items are highly unprofessional and likely to damage credibility. Likewise, for the lower body category, men may wear dressy khakis and dockers while women must either wear skirts that offer full coverage when seated or pants (with the slit of the skirt being cut only insofar as it permits walking or climbing stairs).

Upon reviewing these rules, it became clear that the same gendered ideologies that Veblen discussed were being discursively represented in the male garment but not so much in the female one. Veblen writes that uncomfortable or disabling garments worn by men are an indication of weakness. Nowhere is this principle better expressed than in the more leisurely ambience of a casual Friday. The short sleeves, the lack of a tie and the khakis all promote movement, an indication of vitality and a capacity to participate in predatory exploit, an activity that Veblen classifies as being intrinsic to masculinity (or at least that is the dominant spirituality). For the women, however, the emphasis seems to be more on diminished sexuality, rather than immobility. In other words, while the fear in Veblen’s view of advanced societies was the implication that a woman’s garb could be suggestive of productive employment, the fear here is overt sexuality.

In Veblen’s modern society, the “homely reason for all this conspicuous leisure and attire on the part of women lies in the fact that they are servants to whom, in the differentiation of economic functions, has been delegated the office of putting in evidence their master’s ability to pay” (Ch. 7). In this case, the status of economic dependent is already being undermined by the mere presence of women at the firm and so the ideologies that inform her attire are reconstituted. The skirts and pants are inhibiting but the reason for this is not the maintenance of the appearance of indolence. Rather, the project is to mute female sexuality as much as possible in the ostensible interest of professionalism. In describing corsets, Veblen asserts that it “impairs the personal attractions of the wearer, but the loss suffered on that score is offset by the gain in reputability which comes of her visibly increased expensiveness and infirmity. It may broadly be set down that the womanliness of woman's apparel resolves itself, in point of substantial fact, into the more effective hindrance to useful exertion offered by the garments peculiar to women.” The impairing of “personal attraction” is viewed as a loss in Veblen’s characterization. While Veblen skirts the issue of women as sexual objects, he clearly sees their importance as objects of display. Small hands and feet, a narrow waist, etc are posited as “faults of structure” and so it is preferred that they are emphasized in a woman’s garment. After all, these “weaknesses” are extolled because they further evince the impracticality of women engaging in productive labor. Here, on the other hand, the concealment of female affectations is seemingly given patriarchal approval.

As Veblen writes, as functions change, so do ideals of feminine beauty. The reason for the reconstitution here could be the complete erosion of femininity in vogue at the law firm. Since the project of precluding women from the predatory exploit is all but lost, the next alternative is to masculinize their appearance under the guise of professionalism and decency in order to make their inclusion in the “hunt” appear less unnatural. Moreover, the patriarchal project is just as effective here as it was in Veblen’s book because the same spiritual imperative is at work: decency. The need to appear decent is a motivator in both instances and so it ensures a level of self-regulation.