What we lose when we relax dress codes

Allowing senators to wear whatever they want in the Senate may seem like a liberation, but abandoning the dress code could end up symbolizing the inability to achieve a consensus.< /p>

Responses to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's new relaxation of dress codes have so far been biased toward lines partisan: Republicans deplored it as a breach of decorum and order. “Most, if not all, Republican senators think we should dress for work,” Mitch McConnell said. Mitt Romney called it a "terrible choice" and, in the House, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene called the change "shameful."

Democrats got tendency to dismiss such complaints, insisting that clothing issues are mere distractions in light of the serious problems facing the Senate: on X (formerly Twitter), Democratic Senator Tina Smith wondered how someone one could complain about a dress code when “House Republicans are about to oust the federal government.” a cliff. Senator John Fetterman, famous for his sports shorts and hoodies (and for whom many believe the rules have been changed), expressed a similar sentiment in an interview with MSNBC: "Isn't there more important things we should talk about rather than me dressing like a slob?"

Well, yes and no.

The fact is that the way we dress in various contexts is inseparable from serious political issues. The way we dress telegraphs conveys complex messages to those around us, as well as to ourselves – messages that we constantly receive and interpret, consciously or not. There is no “total freedom” in clothing, only different registers of meaning, entirely dependent on context. Just as words only have meaning relationally – ​​in sentences and paragraphs – clothes only make sense in relation to other clothes. A guest in a tuxedo at a wedding is nothing exceptional, almost invisible. A guest in a tuxedo at a picnic is a spectacle.

To begin with, this new "code without code" poses particular challenges for women, since the outfit Professional attire is actually a standard created for men. The simple dark suit with trousers, jacket and collared shirt was pioneered in the late 19th century as attire for a new class of (male) office workers, and was inspired by the plain, unadorned clothing of clergymen. The costume transforms the man into a compact, easily readable visual unit over which the eye skims quickly, uninterrupted by embellishments or subtleties of silhouette. Costumes therefore homogenize men's bodies, making variations in weight, or even size, less perceptible, focusing attention on the face. Men's suits say "we are heads, not bodies."

Professional attire does some of that for women, but can never deliver the same degree of carefree simplicity. Women are always the ornate and visible bodily sex whose physicality is staged through clothing. As a result, women's fashion – including even professional attire – requires a near-infinity of daily head-to-toe micro-decisions: dress or pants? Low or high neckline? Flats or heels? (If heels, how high?) ​​What kind of jewelry? How much makeup? What does my hair “say”? Even more difficult, these decisions all carry the perpetual risk of tipping us into an "inappropriate" situation in one way or another - of exposing too much or not enough, of trying too much or not enough, of missing the point. happy medium between attractive and nerdy, while, of course, presenting the usual challenges regarding age and body type.

ImageSenator Susan Collins joked about appearing in a bikini to work.Credit... Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times

Casual clothes make things more difficult. John Fetterman in a hoodie and shorts or Ted C...