[Dr. Einav Rabinovitch-Fox is a public historian, writer, and curator who also teaches in the Department of History at Case Western University in Cleveland. Her first book, Dressed for Freedom: The Fashionable Politics of American Feminism, was published by the University of Illinois Press in 2021. Check out this excellent Drafting the Past podcast episode featuring Dr. Rabinovitch-Fox for a lot more of her voice, perspective, and ideas!]
In April 2022, when the Senate voted to confirm the
nomination of Ketanji Brown-Jackson to the Supreme Court, a few Republican
senators were conspicuously missing from the floor. Among them was Lindsey
Graham (R-SC), once a supporter of Brown-Jackson, who
announced he would vote against her. Although no drama was expected during roll-call
vote, as the Justice was able to secure the required majority for her
confirmation, the process was delayed until eventually Graham and three other
Republicans casted their “no” votes from the cloakroom.
While no doubt Graham’s absence from the floor was supposed
to show his opposition, the reason he was bound to the cloakroom was more
mundane: Graham didn’t wear a tie.
The Senate rules, of which Graham is well aware, mandate
formal attire on the floor, and thus it was not a coincidence that Graham chose
to appear that day with a polo shirt and a blazer. However, his defiant
appearance was not so much a protest against sartorial customs, or a sign of a
growing style trend among senators, but more of a safe excuse to fend off the
backlash to his behavior. Instead of proudly voicing his opposition, Graham used
the rigid Senate’s dress as a protection, literally hiding in the closet.
Graham is certainly not a fashion rebel, but in a place like
the Senate, which was never a fashion-forward place, not wearing a tie is in
fact a political statement. As one of the oldest institutions in our country, the
Senate is guided by tradition, especially when it comes to clothing and
appearance. And while some updates have been made throughout the years, especially
with regards to the appearance of women, the spirit of these rules didn’t
change much. Formal wear is still the default when it comes to the senators’
sartorial choices.
Indeed, the Senate is no different from other realms of
business, where corporate attire in the form of a dark suit and a tie has been
the default for about 100 years. The suit wields power and tradition. It is
masculine and authoritative, and thus fits naturally to a place like the
Senate. Unlike women who had to carve their way into masculine spaces and used
their attire as a way to achieve legitimacy and equality, men’s presence in
politics, and by extension, their appearance, was never questioned. In a sense,
men don’t need to be fashion rebels because the power of clothes is already
granted to them. In fact, the suit is so much associated with masculinity, that
any attempts to offer alternative takes on it often happen when women try to
claim it as their own. The suit can be a radical statement, but only if a woman
wears it.
Wearing a suit and tie—especially if you are a man—is maybe
unremarkable, yet adherence to conservative forms of dress doesn’t mean that
fashion is marginal to politics. While it is often the appearance of women
politicians that get the most
scrutiny, in the last couple of years the fashion of men in politics has
also received attention. As younger and more diverse candidates began running
for office, men, as well as women, have increasingly acknowledged the power of
clothes to convey power messages and build their image as politicians. If for
years a suit was the way to go, that has started to change as politicians push against
those definitions, either as a form of protest like Graham or as a form of
image building.
Perhaps the most notable change in the last few election
cycles is the move towards casual clothing. For the new cohort of men senators,
from Jon Ossoff (D-GA) to Mark Kelly (D-AZ), a tie is a rare sight. Kelly
is much more at ease wearing a shirt under a sport or bomber jacket, alluding
to his experience as a Navy captain and an astronaut. Ossoff usually
wears more formal attire, yet he too is rarely seen with a tailored jacket or a
tie. Even Rafael Warnock (D-GA)—maybe the best dresser on Capitol Hill—who is famous
for his well-tailored sleek suits, was seen on the campaign
trail wearing jeans, sporty vests with tieless shirts, and even t-shirts.
[Official Portrait of Senator Rafael Warnock(D-GA). U.S Senate Photographic Studio, Rebecca Hammel]
This trend of course is not limited to the Senate. The rise
of millennials and Gen-Z, as well as the tech industry that espouses more
casual look as a symbol of innovativeness and rebellion, all brought with them
changes to the office dress code. Moreover, the pandemic and the shift to
working from home contributed to the rise in popularity of casual wear, even in
conservative strongholds like Wall
Street. “Casual Fridays” have now become everyday occurrence, as companies
want to broadcast a young, entrepreneurial, and fresh image. In today’s
changing markets, a suit doesn’t convey flexibility, but a t-shirt does.
A t-shirt so it seems can also convey power and
determination. Not only American politicians are adopting casual wear. The
olive-green military t-shirt and pants have been crucial to building Ukraine
president Volodymyr Zelensky’s image as a fierce leader. Whether it is in front
of Congress or the UN, Zelensky’s new “uniforms” provides a new fashionable
language in politics that challenges the traditional power that the formal suit
entails.
Casualness is indeed the newest trend in politics, and no
one understands this better than the newly elect senator John Fetterman from
PA. Fetterman, as he himself
claims, is not your typical politician and his appearance certainly conveys
it: he is a 6’8” with bald head and a biker goatee, lots of tattoos, and
usually wears hoodies and shorts. This appearance expresses his authenticity as
a candidate and his relationship with voters. He is direct and connects with
the “simple man” much better than other politicians who broadcast a more
elitist image. Although he comes from a relatively privileged background, has
extensive political experience, and like many other politicians is also a
Harvard graduate, Fetterman’s appearance relays the image of an “outsider” to
politics that voters find appealing.
Fetterman’s height and body size certainly makes it easier
to amplify his public presence, but his insistence on wearing sweatshirts and
shorts, rather than the conventional suits, is what really makes him stand out.
The casualness of the clothes translates to the ease and comfort he feels with
people and how he communicates his political message. This style makes him
approachable, human, and most of all, relatable – qualities every politician
desires.
[Official Portrait of Lt. Governor John Fetterman, Governor Tom Wolf website]
Fetterman’s image is actually enhanced by his visible
awkwardness and discomfort every time he is required to wear a suit and a tie.
Even when he opts to a more formal wear, his preference is not for a dress
shirt or sporty blazers, but work shirts and Dickies trousers, again appealing
to a more working-class esthetics that makes his political message attractive.
Whereas other politicians, most notably Trump, also tried to capitalize on
working-class styles by wearing trucker hats and ill-fitted suits, Fetterman
made informality and casualness his trademark and part of his authentic self.
In fashion, as well as in politics, it is difficult not to pass as a fake, but
Fetterman brings with his style a sense of authenticity that is rare in both
realms.
Fetterman’s casual style function differently from those
working in high-tech or other creative industries. Casualness in politics is
more than just building an image. In an institution that is based on rules and
regulations, legal jargon and pro forma, the suit is a symbol and a marker of
power. Abandoning the style then is an antithesis, if not a full-blown
rebellion. Casualness means disorder, but maybe more importantly, it means
democracy. And that is perhaps the whole point. Fetterman does not seek to
adjust the suit, or to update the look by ditching the tie, he asks to abandon
the suit, and its politics, all together. When Fetterman wears a hoodie
sweatshirt he doesn’t convey the innovative spirit of a startup entrepreneur,
but a political commitment to social organizing and working-class values.
To be sure, Fetterman can pull off this style in part
because he is a big white guy. Yes, his appearance is unconventional for a
politician, but him wearing a hoodie will not endanger him or criminalize his
presence, as it did in the case of Trayvon Martin. Fetterman’s gender, as well
as his size, also work in his favor. While his agenda is not that far from the
more progressive wing of the Democratic Party, his unconventional attire
doesn’t register him as a radical. He is taken seriously and endearingly
because his gender and race protect him.
Fetterman’s political success might bring a new spirit to
the Senate. While not everyone is poised to adopt his clothing, his campaigning
style is certainly getting some attention in the Democratic Party. In terms of
fashion, we might see the young senator’s influence in pushing reforms and
changes to the dress code, building on the current trend towards casualness. No
doubt, he will have some bipartisan support to loosen things up (at least in
terms of ties). More than anything, Fetterman’s fashion style brings with it a
new approach to politics and how it can be done. As we expand the range of
“what a politician looks like” we also expand the range of what is possible.
However, if the history of the fashion battles in the Senate
are any indication, change, whether to the dress code or to the way we conduct
politics, will arrive slowly. In fact, at least for now, it doesn’t look like
Fetterman is interested in challenging tradition. On his first official day,
even though he did not had business on the floor (the only place where rules of
decorum apply), he
appeared in his one and only ill-fitted, off-the-rack suit, which he also wore
for his debate. We might see bolder fashion statements from Fetterman in the
future, but so far it looks like he seeks to blend in, not to lead a fashion
revolution.
Fashion both wields and yields power, and as such, it is
difficult to give up a symbol so powerful as the suit. Fetterman might learn to
get at ease with suits and the power they command. But fashion also relies on
change, and as such, it also contains opportunities. Fetterman’s style can be such
an opportunity. He shows us that power can be gained not only through
conventional routes but by constructing alternative images. His appearance asks
us to consider our assumptions on who can participate in politics and how, and
whose voice and appearance matter.
While fashion is maybe not the most important thing on
politicians’ agendas, it is still a tool through which political statements are
conveyed and utilized. Fashion allows to reclaim and adjust old conventions, as
well as to rebel against them and invent new ones. It might take a while until
hoodies will be a common sight on the Hill, but we should not dismiss the power
of clothes to shape politics and to make (or break) politicians.
[Next
series starts Monday,
Ben
PS. What
do you think?]
No comments:
Post a Comment