Shirts and Shoes Required: Unnoticed and Arbitrary Standards in Society

Though sumptuary laws are not generally realized today, they are in place under a guise that is socially acceptable. Dress codes are instated in schools, businesses, offices, and, essentially, in society. These dress codes impose a standard on youths  and adults in order to establish what type of dress and appearance is acceptable. Oftentimes, the “acceptable” dress and appearance is one that can be considered drab and dull. These standards also eliminate individuality within a society and this can have unfavorable effects on the citizens within that society.

Though “respectable attire” is a standard that has evolved, it is an idea that has been preserved throughout the ages. The types of clothes one wears are indicative of their wealth and place in society, and this has rung true for hundreds of years. Even in the middle ages, only royalty and persons of high social status were able to wear clothes considered decent, as only they could afford them.  For instance, in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, which was written in the fourteenth century and took place during roughly the same time, Queen Guinevere is described as having a canopy draped over her, surrounded by “rich metals and jewels” (Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, part 1, line 79). Of course, the fact that she is a queen draped in jewels is no surprise, but it is this that aids in designating her status. Later, the entrance of the Green Knight is described over the course of almost three pages, though it is not by his actions that he is initially described, but by his appearance. From the Green Knight’s “closely trimmed” tunic (part 1, line 153) to his “neat stockings” (part 1, line 157), his impressive apparel is what intimidates the knights of King Arthur’s court and earns him the respect (or fear) he desires.

Children today are taught early on that it is imperative to earn the respect of others, and that the easiest way to do this is by dressing in a manner that is considered decent. In order to enforce this “lesson,” many schools require uniforms, and the majority that do not have extremely strict standards of dress and firm rules regarding appearance. For example, most public schools do not allow “unnatural” hair colors, “short” shorts, “thin” straps on shirts, and other various “distractions” that are simply subjective. Because of the idiosyncratic nature of these rules, many schools (especially private schools) require uniforms that consist of what could be considered business attire. From something as simple as bland hair colors to something as extreme as coats and ties on a daily basis, public and private school systems tend to require well-pressed and presentable students in order to prepare them for societal standards of dress, which tend to force everyone into a state devoid of originality or personality.

In offices, the standard dress is typically a coat and tie or suits and dresses. This “professional attire” is something that is ingrained in us from an early age (generally with school uniforms). As Marjory Garber relayed in her book Vested Interests, “kids carry themselves a little differently with a shirt and tie on” (Garber, page 23). This idea is imposed upon youths the moment they begin school, from the age of four or five, and it is carried on throughout their lives in order to “help people see themselves entering the working world” (Garber, 23).

Even in public places like parks and restaurants and “casual” places like fast food restaurants, signs are displayed and rules are imposed that state, “shirts and shoes required”. Though this may seem like an obvious courtesy for fellow patrons and citizens, it only seems obvious because we have been taught that these things are necessary. These necessary gentilities are just dress codes we have been conditioned to oblige. As Noah Feldman, a professor of constitutional and international law at Harvard University, stated in his article “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Civil Rights?”, these dress codes could actually be an infringement on the fundamental rights of citizens. Feldman alludes to the fact that different cultures have different measures of what is appropriate and professional, and more often than not, these measures do not align with those of Western culture. However, according to the Constitution, private citizens maintain the right to be “as racist,  sexist, and exclusionary as [they] like” (Feldman).  Of course, this does not mean that racist, sexist, exclusionary citizens are not shunned and disdained, for it is customary to adhere to society and whatever standards it upholds.

Unfortunately, society’s ideal attire also comes at a price. For schools that do not require uniforms, there is an extremely obvious divide amongst lower, middle, and sometimes upper class students. According to Emma Banister’s and Margaret Hogg’s article entitled “Negative Symbolic Consumption and Consumers’ Drive for Self-Esteem: The Case of the Fashion Industry”, the image congruency theory states that consumers will purchase products that agree with their own ideal being, and more often than not, their own ideal being is based on what is “popular.” This is due to notions of “negative self-incongruity and congruity”, which motivate consumers to purchase or reject clothing based on brand names (Banister and Hogg, page 853). The types of clothes worn by students essentially determine their social  status throughout their schooling. Brand names like Banana Republic and J. Crew set the standard for “preps” or upper class children, while brands like American Eagle and Aeropostale are designated for the middle class. “Off-brands” or generic clothing are typically associated with lower class citizens. These stigmas can follow children through their entire lives, and can influence career decisions and other major life choices.

Despite its inherently detrimental effect on the world and its inhabitants,  there is a perpetuated standard of dress that has existed for centuries depending on the culture, and the standard will inevitably exist for years to come, albeit in varied forms. These ridiculous standards are capricious and subjective and merely confine citizens to the limits built by society.
 

Works Cited

Banister, Emma N. and Margaret K. Hogg. "Negative symbolic consumption and consumers' drive for self esteem: the case of the fashion industry." European Journal of Marketing (2004).

Feldman, Noah. "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Civil Rights?" 21 January 2014. BloombergView. 22 October 2014 <http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-01-21/no-shirt-no-shoes-no-civil-rights->.

Garber, Marjorie. Vested Interests. 22 October 2014 <http://ereserves.jsu.edu/eres/ReedEH102dresscodes.pdf>.

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Oxford: Oxford University Press, n.d.

Sumptuary "Laws" in Society

Though sumptuary laws are not generally realized today, they are in place under a guise that is socially acceptable. Dress codes are instated in schools, businesses, offices, and, essentially, in society.

Children are taught early on what types of dress are “appropriate” and the different ways in which they can make “bad” impressions based on their attire. Many schools even require uniforms, and the majority that do not have extremely strict standards of dress and firm rules regarding appearance. For example, most public schools do not allow “unnatural” hair colors, “short” shorts, “thin” straps on shirts, and other various “distractions” that are simply subjective. Because of the idiosyncratic nature of these rules, many schools (especially private schools) require uniforms that consist of what could be considered business attire. From something as simple as bland hair colors to something as extreme as coats and ties on a daily basis, public and private school systems tend to require well-pressed and presentable students in order to prepare them for societal standards of dress.

Even in public places like parks and restaurants and “casual” places like fast food restaurants, signs are displayed and rules are imposed that state, “shirts and shoes required”. Though this may seem like an obvious courtesy for fellow patrons and citizens, it only seems obvious because we have been taught that these things are necessary. These necessary gentilities are just dress codes we have been conditioned to oblige.

In offices, the standard attire is typically a coat and tie or suits and dresses. This “professional attire” is something that is ingrained in us from an early age. As Margaret Gaber relayed in her book Vested Interests, “kids carry themselves a little differently with a shirt and tie on” (Garber 23). This idea is imposed upon youths the moment they begin school, from the age of four or five, and it is carried on throughout their lives in order to “help people see themselves entering the working world” (Garber 23).

Though “respectable attire” is a standard that has evolved, it is an idea that has been perpetuated throughout the ages. Even in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, which was written in the fourteenth century, Queen Guinevere is described as having a canopy draped over her, surrounded by “rich metals and jewels” (part 1, line 79). The entrance of the Green Knight is described over the course of almost three pages, though it is not by his actions that he is initially described, but by his appearance. From the Green Knight’s “closely trimmed” tunic (part 1, line 153) to his “neat stockings” (part 1, line 157), his impressive apparel is what intimidates the knights of King Arthur’s court.

There is a perpetuated standard of “professional” dress and attire that has existed for centuries depending on the culture, and the standard will inevitably exist for years to come, albeit in varied forms. These standards are capricious and subjective and merely confine citizens to the limits built by society.

Works Cited:

Garber, Marjorie. Vested Interests. http://ereserves.jsu.edu/eres/ReedEH102dresscodes.pdf

Harrison, Keith. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Print.

Deception and Duplicity in "Bisclavret"

Marie de France’s “Bisclavret” tells of a man who is a werewolf. Because of Bisclavret’s mysterious absences throughout every week, his wife grows suspicious and confronts him about it, claiming she is “in terror every day” when he is gone. He tells her that he is a werewolf, and that he kept it a secret in order to ensure he would be able to turn back into a human, because without his clothes, he is able to change back from a wolf. She takes advantage of this knowledge and, with the help of a knight who is in love with her, steals her husband’s clothes so he may not return to his human form. She and the knight get married and Bisclavret is taken in by the king after showing loyalty and because the king felt “[his] sense is human”. The knight with whom the wife eloped is invited to a celebration with the king, and he brings the wife with him. Bisclavret recognizes the knight and attacks him, then attacking his wife and biting off her nose. Because Bisclavret has never been violent, everyone assumes that he must have a good reason for his actions. They interrogate the wife and she finally reveals that Bisclavret is a werewolf and she returns his clothes.

Although Bisclavret is technically the beast in this tale, it may be said that his wife is the monster. She tells her husband he should never “doubt [she’s] loyal in any affair”, yet she uses the intimate information he trusted her with to betray him. Her deceit almost permanently ruined his life by trapping him in his wolf form forever. She does not even show any remorse or regret for her actions. The fact that she and all the women in her family later had no noses is probably the only repercussion she considered (and that was only after-the-fact).

Nonetheless, Bisclavret’s wife is initially very forthcoming and understanding of Bisclavret’s condition. At the soonest opportunity, though, she manipulates the situation to suit her desires. She takes advantage of Bisclavret’s trust in her in order to bring him to ruin. Bisclavret, however, is a beast physically, but a humane, civil man (even when he is a wolf). Even when under threat of death, Bisclavret “kisses” the foot and leg of the king, unwilling to actively defend himself due to his fierce loyalty. Despite the fact that he is seemingly the most threatening character of the poem, he is in fact one of the most harmless. This idea of physical appearances being false or misleading coincides with the ideas that “one should not judge a book by its cover” and that appearances are not a reliable judge of character.

Medea and "Hustler": Challengers of the Norm

Euripides’ tragic play Medea depicts part of the tale of Medea, one of the most infamous literary characters of all time. The play begins with Medea lamenting to a chorus of women and townspeople regarding the infidelity of her husband, Jason, who has married Glauce, the daughter of Creon who is the king of Corinth. Jason claims to have married the princess in order to give the children a better social status, as having royal siblings and a royal father would improve their lives while having a “barbarian” for a mother would hinder them. Medea and her children are then banished from the land, as Creon is fearful of Medea’s wrath and “cleverness”.  Medea begs to stay for another day in order to make provisions for her and her children. She then meets with Aegeus, king of Athens. Aegeus sympathizes with Medea and offers her asylum in Athens under the condition that she helps him and his wife have children. Medea then plots to murder Jason’s new wife with poisoned wedding presents delivered by her children. The presents would, in theory, help earn the children a place in the kingdom, persuading Glauce to take pity on them and allow them to stay. They would also kill the children. However, the golden gifts do not kill the children, and Medea slaughters them when they return. The gifts do kill the princess, and in Creon’s grief over his daughter’s death, he is killed as well. Jason goes to Medea and pleads with her to hold his murdered children, but she denies him this and flies away on a “chariot drawn by dragons” (Euripides 43).

The obvious themes of Medea involve jealousy, scheming and revenge – all of which relate most directly to Medea. Throughout the play Medea reveals her plans for revenge to the chorus, who understand Medea’s feelings but disagree with her actions. The more ambiguous theme of power is indicative of Jason and his actions throughout the play and throughout his past. These themes and the characters to which they relate express almost blatant stereotypes that have survived through the centuries. Women are seen as frail, fallible, jealous, and spiteful, while men are viewed as strong, determined, and earnest.

            Throughout the play, Medea repeats the phrase “I have suffered” (Euripides 4,5,6, 10), which emphasizes the type of self-pity with which women are often characterized. This coincides with the stereotype of women being egotistic, self-concerned, and fragile. She also reacts to the revelation of her husband’s infidelity in an outrageous manner, poisoning her husband’s new bride and the king before murdering her own children. Again, women are generally “known” for their overreactions, and Medea has obviously mastered the art of overreaction.

            The theme of power and control relates not only to Jason, but also to Medea. This could be considered surprising, given the fact that determination and strong willpower are not necessarily “typical” traits for women. Although it was, in fact, Medea’s actions that helped Jason achieve his goals and earn his “status”. His legendary travels with the Argonauts depict him conquering enemies to avenge his father, though his success would not have been possible without Medea’s magic and ingenuity. This just affirms the irony of Jason telling his children, “Your father has taken care. He has made…ample provision for you” (Euripides 29). If it had not been for Medea, Jason never would have been in a position to take care of his children, nor would they have existed, yet he still treats Medea in a disposable manner. His flippant behavior towards his wife highlights the stereotype of men being inconsiderate, insensitive, and unsympathetic.

            Despite, Medea’s apparent adhering to feminine stereotypes in that she is self-concerned and deceptively weak, it may be said that she is actually manipulating these stereotypes in order to obtain what she desires, which is revenge. She is a well-known exploiter of sympathy, which is why Creon was so incredibly wary of her presence in Corinth. This conniving behavior corresponds to the publication of Hustler, a pornographic magazine that depicts “grotesque” bodies instead of airbrushed, “socially acceptable” bodies.

            Laura Kipnis assesses the magazine in her article “(Male) Desire and (Female) Disgust: Reading Hustler”.  Kipnis examines the way in which Hustler challenges the norms by publishing wildly inappropriate versions of what is already considered inappropriate. She states that Hustler is an “unromanticized body”, which defies all that is standard within the porn industry and even goes so far as to “disturb and unsettle its readers” (Kipnis 375).  Hustler is an extremely “real” and unashamed version of what is considered conventional, much as Medea is exceedingly brazen in all she does.

            In ancient Greece, where the play takes place, Medea is considered a barbarian (even before she murders her children). She is from Colchis, and because of that she is a foreigner in Corinth, where she resides with her husband and children. In this society, foreigners are shunned, and in spite of Medea’s best efforts to appear “normal”, she is not accepted within the community. Even the king admits he fears her and her supposed barbarism, and it is ultimately because of this that she becomes so unhinged. Her façade has not worked, and she is unable to keep her husband, so she goes to the extreme and murders everyone who has caused her grief. She does this, though, after manipulating everyone into believing she is the victim.

            Much like Hustler, Medea plays into everyone’s expectations in such a way that it is considered obscene. Medea acts how she is expected to act (barbaric yet clever), and Hustler provides the public with what it wants from a pornographic magazine: sex. The sex depicted in the magazine, though, is not “normal” in comparison to other pornographic magazines like Playboy and Penthouse, who were accused of “hypocrisy” and “veiling the body” (Kipnis 375).  It is vulgar and “disturbing”. Both Medea and Hustler magazine challenge norms by simply adhering to them, a tactic which is so radical and absurd it is actually effective.

***

http://www.preraphaelites.org/Content/Repository/Media/Collection/1925-p105/preview_1925-p105.jpg

            Frederick Sandys’ depiction of Medea shows her as apparently offended, insulted, or hurt in some manner, presumably by the actions of her husband, Jason. He betrays her and marries another woman and Medea exclaims her grief over this throughout the play. While she does appear to be in distress, she also seems to be preparing the poisoned gifts that will be used to kill Glauce and Creon. This illustrates (quite literally) her duplicitous nature and the how she manages to succeed in achieving her revenge.

***

Works Cited

Kipnis, Laura. “(Male) Desire and (Female) Disgust: Reading Hustler.” Houston Cole Library Reserves. EH219.

Sandys, Frederick. Medea. 1866. Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery, Birmingham, England. Pre-Raphaelite Online Resource. Web. 21 Sept. 2014.

Euripides. Medea. New York: Dover Publications, Inc. 1993. Print.