Dress codes (just for fun)
As a group of us were recently planning for an upcoming international training, the question of "dress codes" came up. In international contexts, this can be surprisingly complicated. Not only do the usual "rules" of occasion (on a scale of formal to casual) and self-presentation in a public setting (Who is going to be there? And how will they be dressed?) have to be taken into account, but also cross-cultural norms as well. And to some extent at least, climate.
Thus the North American tendency to dress casually at all times must be balanced with what local (international) custom dictates. And often enough the local weather will be hot and humid, complicating the issue (for men anyway) of whether to wear a coat and tie or whether there is an acceptable (sometimes local) and more comfortable substitute.
In general, the "rules" (I am only dealing with men here-someone else can do the women) seem to vary in fairly predictable ways (though these norms are likely changing rapidly now). Of course my experience is essentially North American, and so thus are the rules I lay out. To what degree increasing globalization means these rules will be imposed on others or be changed to accommodate them remains to be seen.
I only mention four contexts, I am sure there are many more (images courtesy of Google - in reality in Bible Translation we all seem to be about 60 years old).
________________________________________________________
1. If only North Americans (at least from the U.S.) will be there, casual dress is fine. This might even (depending on the weather) mean short pants and sandals.
2. If the meeting is international with local people in a community where most are usually dressed for work in the fields, jeans will be fine, and a polo shirt. But short pants will likely be quite out of place, and sandals may be impractical where there is a lot of mud. Nicer hiking boots might work better, or even running shoes.
3. If the meeting is in an urban setting with church leaders likely to come with coat and tie, the minimum is usually dress casual. In this context, jeans are not usually permitted, and while a tie is not usually necessary, the shirt should have a collar and the shoes (or sandals if the weather is very hot) should be dress quality.
4. In certain settings (think Society of Biblical Literature meetings), running shoes with jeans are okay as long as you wear a nice shirt and a sport coat. A tie makes the jeans and running shoes even more acceptable.
But this can be reversed: a polo shirt is fine as long as you wear dress slacks and dress shoes/sandals instead of jeans and sneakers or running shoes. Either of these could be termed "academic" dress, and might be worn by professors except perhaps when receiving the Nobel prize.
The "academic" style can be hybridized somewhat, but it is risky:
Of course, if you are not presenting, then you can relax yet a bit more: polo/collared shirt, jeans, and running shoes are fine (but no short pants, please, and t-shirts are frowned upon somewhat).
What strikes me about all of this how variable and arbitrary it is, and yet how specific the "rules" are in specific contexts nonetheless. Of course people violate "the rules" all the time, but even then we are all aware that they are doing so (I have been called on my own fashion rule-breaking on occasion).
It may be that others have a tighter/looser/culturally diverse definition of dress codes for men. What is interesting to me is that they exist at all, and the extent to which they occupy a place in our social cognition. Is it all about group belonging? Whatever it is, it must be important.
Comments are welcome as always.
Edit: Since I cannot add pictures to the comments section (something we should maybe ask for), I am putting some here. The first one illustrates the point I was trying to make that even when we think we are making fashion choices for reasons other than cultural ones, culture still intervenes. If we want to wear "practical" clothing, for example, once we correct for climate we still find ourselves embedded in a cultural context. It may be hard for us to see it from the inside of a culture ("I just feel more comfortable in cut-offs and flip-flop sandals") , but we certainly recognize it in other cultures. Mao famously defended the "uniform" he inspired as practical and egalitarian. Many outsiders would see it as representing quite the opposite, and nearly everyone would see it at least as representing a cultural statement as well as a historical moment.
One sees the regional-international variations in men's styles illustrated in the substitutions made for Western coats and ties in hot and humid climates (many more examples could be added):
5 comments
Sign in to join the conversation.
Recently I've thought that fashion and dress codes are a side effect of having linguistic minds. It seems so natural to us that an arbitrary string of phonemes (or an analogous string of graphemes) can represent a real thing or event. By the same logic, it becomes natural to associate an arbitrary system of dress with abstract qualities such as being respectable/respectful, honorable, competent, contemporary, attractive, etc. I tend to ignore issues of fashion, but it could be argued that this also is using clothing for communication; I'm expressing practicality, not obsessing over externals, and not worrying what others think.
Jeff, Sandals are fine. But not flip-flops. And the shoes do not so much have to be dress (shiny) as to be plain (dark brown or black, usually) colors. Some of us have even gotten all-black running shoes which we wear for travel in case we go directly from the plane to the local Bible Society office, for example. I may have to add a couple of other images to illustrate other regional dress codes for me. In hot climates, the substitute for coat and tie varies by region, for example. One thinks of the Nehru jacket or the Guayabera of the Philippines or Mexico, etc. http://www.artofmanliness.com/2012/07/25/guayabera/
Of course you are right that individuals tweak the rules and that different groups (and generations) negotiate their own rules as well. Just like music and language, =all= our cultural tokens (including dress) are open for negotiation. And we will not always agree, even amongst ourselves.
Phil, Stereotypes are a minefield, but we are well into that area already. White, heterosexual men in the U.S are notorious for dressing badly/comfortably. But people do notice. I had someone comment when I came once directly from the airport to a conference dressed in my new dark blue jeans, black running shoes, nice solid-color T-shirt and dressier (not fleece, not gym style) solid color dark blue hooded sweatshirt. I changed into dress casual the first chance I got. And you are quite right to note the changing norms over time. But only the elders among us (I include myself now) really notice generational change of this kind-it is just slow enough to not really see it until you have lived to a certain age.
Interesting talk about dress and dress codes. here in Zambia, the suit and tie means 'moneyed' and is generally expected of those who are expected to seem to afford one. All weather dress! But this brings to mind how one culture's culture is taken as what defines whether one is Christian or not. In TRANSLATION AS MISSION: Bible Translation in the Modern Missionary movement, by William A. Smalley, a hilarious illustration is given of a 'tribe' evangelised without entering into the issue of dress codes. This 'tribe' later turns missionary and goes to a lowlands 'tribe' where they find an appalling situation of only-a-string-around-the-waist as dress. They immediately order for their own more fashionable and more-covering gourd-and-string versions to be brought to this naked tribe. Definitely, nakedness is offensive, just as dirty clothing is. But types of clothing to pander to the whims of who chooses whom they want to accept in their circles!