Twisted Girdle Syndrome: Dress Code REDUX

Barbados prides itself for its high level of literacy, though the complacency that has engendered is now beginning to slip. But, it is not part of the common place for this literacy to be translated into an ability to think critically. I will use today's editorial in the Advocate as an example. I wrote last night about the latest 'dress code' issue, and lo, this Sunday morning I see 'Dress codes challenged' for the main commentary in that paper. I am not saying they are following my lead. But what do they say? (Please read it yourself.)

We get a description of what has taken place, in their eyes, 'since the 1960s': 'appropriate dress' in those days compared to now has 'caused a clash of cultures'? Well, has has anything been caused? What is this clash of cultures? We live in the hot and sometimes humid Caribbean and people are dressing as they should in such circumstances, not as if they are in chilly, windy, overcast London or Birmingham, England. If there is a clash of culture it is between ways taken from the British and Britain and ways felt right by Caribbeans in the Caribbean. All correct, especially now that we one-time colonized are now independent. As the British would say about life here, "It ain't 'alf hot, mate."

The following description given by the paper about how dress styles have changed is interesting. Nowhere does the editorial address what 'appropriate' means. It posits that what is written on a board, or printed on a paper is sufficient justification to follow and do not question. Yes, there are social mores behind the original codes but what were they and why were they 'right'? The editorial slips in the non-sequitor moralisation: 'Indeed, the state of dress in public is rapidly deteriorating...' How so? We have no examples of what that means and if it is indeed correct, but our minds are put into condemnation mode because it is really saying that those who do not dress as prescribed are 'villains' responsible for some downward shift in values. It then jumps to the unreasonable-a la Matthew Farley and his allusion to bare breasts in Parliament--and talks about 'saggy pants' and indecent exposure and beach wear when not at the beach. But this kind of wear is not this that is at issue. Take away that red herring! It is about people wearing quite decent, normal everyday clothes but somehow not being able to get past some 'barriers' because these outfits are deemed 'inappropriate'. That is the lack of critical thinking. Tell me, or us, why these dress codes matter and what they do to enhance anything. Will my birth certificate last longer, or my decree absolute be really cast iron if I have on a the prescribed clothes? Will the government official due to serve me have an uncontrollable fit of frothing as he or she sees my wife's bare arms?

I then looked at the same paper's and the Nation's pictures for today. I see hints of the same 'culture clash'. I see Barbados' and St. Vincent's PMs (Messrs. Thompson and Gonsalves) sitting at a table with the PM from Trinidad and Tobago in between them. Mr. Thompson sports a pale long sleeved shirt with collar and no tie, and wears a wrist bracelet. Mr. Gonsalves wears a short sleeved shirt with a print of elephants and parrots; he too is wearing a bracelet. Mr. Manning is wearing a dark jacket (I presume part of a suit), with pale shirt, and tie; no visible jewellery. I am not sure at what point during the recent discussions on CSME this picture was taken, but what am I to deduce about 'appropriate' wear?

There is a microphone in front of the participants and it bears the maker's name, Bosch. There is a great English word, 'bosh', meaning pretentious or silly talk or writing. Could the camera have spotted the right sounding caption to add to this discussion?

I presume that Messrs. Thompson and Gonsalves felt that they were functionally appropriately dressed for whatever they needed to do. I wont speculate about what they had on their feet. I presume that Mr. Manning felt aptly dressed too. I suspect that none of them felt that their contributions would have differed had they been dressed differently. I suggest to the Advocate that it read its back page headline, 'New Approach Needed'. Ironically, in an adjacent picture to that caption we see PM Thompson sporting his idea of 'elegantly casual' (black jacket, tie, white shirt, pale (white?) slacks). Those with him are in suits (men) and a purple jacket and black skirt (female). The PM managed the ribbon cutting perfectly. I don't think the building would have moved had he worn his often customary causal shirt and slacks for the cutting.

My suggestion would be to think hard about why we want people to wear other than normal clothes to conduct normal business? That's all. If there is something special that particular clothes add to the task then I will go with that; like needing a helmet to visit a building society, or a protective suit for a chemical plant. But, do not get het up about people wanting documents and coming to collect them in sleeveless blouses or sandals. If it were Rihanna, dressed finely as she often is, what would be the outcome? I notice that Ryan Brathwaite sports one if not two earrings.

Breeding a country that acts like lemmings is not how to make progress. Clothes should not be much more than a reflection of who you are, but we have been caught up with ideas that clothes say what you are. By dressing in certain ways we may like to suggest that people have somehow gotten better or worse. It hold so much false class and social content that I need to think about writing a book. Emancipate yourself from mental slavery...