Shorts and Hoodies Are Disrespectful Of The People.
By Karen and Erica
As we have written, dressing for work is not a casual exercise. Work is a formal activity, and dressing for work means conveying to others that you know you are doing something with ritualistic aspects—you are expected to perform, for an agreed number of hours (which may be unlimited) in return for which you will be paid. If you are, as we were, representing other people—clients—you must also act as if you understand that when people see you they see the client.
If you have been elected to represent the People, when people look at you they see the People. Your work is quite ceremonial. You gave been given an honorable job, to be performed in hallowed halls, where you will be seen at all times, and you will be acting in service to others. Serious business.
So, what about Senator John Fetterman? And Senator Chuck Schumer?
We do not think Senator Fetterman’s attire properly conveys an understanding of the gravity of the activity in which he is engaged. He is a representative of the People, and he is engaged in serious work. That work is not to be done in a basement, by himself, in shorts and a hoodie. It is work to be done in public, with others doing the same serious work. Mutual respect is key, but so is respect for the country, and for your job.
So we ask Senator Fetterman to dress accordingly. And while we think it ludicrous that the Senate should need a dress code, we think it even more ludicrous that Senator Schumer decided there was no need to dress in a way that reflects the work of the senate. (Breaking news—Schumer reversed himself!)
We also know clothing is messaging, and sometimes the message is rather explicitly that the wearer does not respect what he is doing. The FT’s take is right on.
Today, the suit and (especially) the tie signal that you are not at the top of the social system. It signals that you work for someone else in a culture that prizes autonomy above all. It is the uniform of the investment banker who must suck up to the hoodie-wearing tech entrepreneur, of the billionaire’s bodyguard, and of the hustling salesman. It is only in this latter sense, and emphatically not the former, that it is fitting that senators should wear suits — to mark that they are the people’s servants. Fetterman’s critics failed to see this distinction, which made it easy for him to insinuate that they were talking about suits in the first sense, and were elitists.
(Another interesting example of the fundamentally subservient character of formal clothes is the British royal family. Why do they dress so carefully, in an age of informality? Not because they sit atop the class system. On the contrary. It’s because they are service workers, reporting to the nation, which likes them looking correct).
Yes, servants of the People should dress as if they understand their status. They are incredibly important, but not because of who they are. Because of who we are.
