Etiquette and Inappropriate Attire

By 1985, denim had gone mainstream. Designer denim jeans had been the focus throughout the late 1970’s and 1980’s. – Above, a 1985 Gap store advertisement for denim jackets as well as blue jeans~Image source, Pinterest.

Blue jean set will fight to the death over being 'appropriate'

THE two words most likely to start a fight in this society are “appropriate attire.” Never mind issues of morality or politics or religion. "You are what you deck yourself out to be" seems to be our most deeply held belief.

The emotional history of this century can be told in battles over such things as miniskirts and short pants, girls bobbing their hair and boys refusing to cut theirs, and the absence of shoes or the presence of earrings. What keeps the war going is fashion, which alters not only the conventional standard, but also the rebel uniform, thus preserving the illusion that the conflict is ever a fresh one.

Miss Manners has never actually heard anyone come out for the right to wear inappropriate attire. But a great many people (wearing blue jeans and T-shirts) are prepared to fight to the death against the stultifying idea of appropriate attire.

Most restaurants, churches, theaters, schools, offices and individuals giving parties have therefore abandoned the effort of requesting appropriate attire. When some institution does make a feeble attempt to mandate clothing more formal than that worn for the messier active sports, there are cries of violation of individual rights such as used to be reserved for political revolutions.

The United States Treasury Department recently suggested that its male employees have jackets within reach in which to meet the general public, and that its female employees wear dresses, skirts and blouses or sweaters, suits or pantsuits. The two traditional objections were immediately voiced:

That employees ought to be treated as adults. That people should be permitted to express their individuality through their choice of dress.

What Miss Manners hears un-spoken beneath this is the argument that there ought not to be any symbolism connected with dress. If по such interpretations can be made about the choice of clothing, then it stands to reason that each person may be safely left to make his or her choices dictated by individual taste or comfort.

Well and good but she has noticed that the very people who battle clothing standards accept the notion that clothing is symbolic. If anything, it is more of a "statement," not less, to wear sweat pants to the office or to somebody's formal wedding, than it is to dress as expected.

Like it or not, we all interpret clothing choices in terms of age and of willingness to conform to group practices. Dressing up for church indicates respect; for a party, it shows stylistic cooperation with the hosts' plans; for a restaurant or theater, a sense of making a special occasion. Conformity not only in
clothing but in the brand of clothing indicates peer acceptance to school children, who, of course, are outraged at the very idea of school uniforms.

What should work clothing symbolize? That the work is in the hands of responsible adults.

By wearing outfits associated with adolescents or with leisure activities, grown-ups signify that they are not seriously committed to their jobs. And by stressing what they call individuality, they are distancing themselves from representing the organizations that employ them.

In her social life, Miss Manners is not sure she wants to cultivate people who symbolically sneer at their hosts or deliberately down-grade festive events. But she is positive that she does not want to do business with people who signal that they represent only themselves (and could not, therefore, care less whether the company they work for satisfies the customers) and unwillingly at that (because they'd rather be off playing with the rest of the kids). – By Miss Manner, United Feature Syndicate, 1985

🍽Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia