‘These women, I'm going to dress
them in black ... I imposed black; it's still going strong today..." These
are the words of Gabriella (Coco) Chanel, spoken to one of her biographers.
Chanel sought to influence what people wore through innovation, craftsmanship
and creativity. Others have taken a more direct and legislative approach.
There have also been many
attempts to prohibit people from wearing certain clothing styles, colours or
fabrics.
The reign of King Henry VIII
of England was a boom time for "Acts of Apparel". The clothing laws
included: no wearing of purple silk unless you’re the king or his close family;
no wearing garments made of foreign or imported wool; no crimson, unless you
have the rank of knight or higher, and unless you work for the government or
own substantial lands, then no velvet, satin or damask.
Like father like daughter,
Queen Elizabeth I passed laws requiring the Irish to dress in English-style
garments.
Breaking these laws could get
your clothing confiscated and, theoretically, you could be fined for each day
you had illegally worn purple, crimson or silk.
The problem with ridiculous
rules is that they become impossible to enforce and the fashion police
apparently didn’t get many convictions.
These laws were mostly an
attempt to assert social distinctions and maintain a visual social hierarchy
within society. Other shifts towards clothing related legislation have also
sought to impose religious or ethnic distinctions.
At various points in history
members of the Jewish community have been required to wear items that marked
them out as Jews.
A German decree issued in
1941, for example, required all Jews over the age of 6 to wear a yellow badge
with the word Jude inscribed on it.
This was just one act in a
long line of attempts to enforce items of apparel that would distinguish Jews
from the rest of the populace.
Historian Paul Johnson
documents earlier instances in history, when Jewish women were, quite
bizarrely, required to wear one red shoe and one black, with the additional
stipulation that they also wear a small bell on the mismatched shoes or around
their necks.
In most countries the idea of
attempting to legislate for social distinction through dress has all but
vanished. Just try to stop an impoverished, unemployed youth from a council
estate in East London from wearing Burberry or any other luxury fashion brand
that takes his fancy.
Similarly, most modern nations
wouldn’t dare insist that members of religious groups identify themselves
through their apparel.
Today though, where there is
talk of legislating apparel, the push seems to be for assimilation; distinction
is no longer desirable.
The recent attempted burqini
ban should be viewed in the context of a long historical line of facile and
ultimately counterproductive attempts to externally impose what people should
or should not wear.
With the exception of public
decency, telling people what to wear seems anachronistic. It is hardly
surprising, but deeply gratifying, to know that France’s top administrative
court – Conseil d’État – has overturned this controversial ban.
Dr Justin Thomas is an
associate professor at Zayed University
On Twitter:
@DrJustinThomas
No comments:
Post a Comment