The New York Times recently published a take on the acceptance of slovenliness in our world. Can't we all just ignore hygiene and wardrobe and get on with what really matters? See What We Lose When We Loosen Dress Codes.
If you missed it, the august and respected United States Senate recently pitched its dress code in the refuse pile. Some celebrate it, some decry it, and others see it as merely a false distraction from the real challenges and issues facing the republic. There is merit perhaps in all three perspectives. The reason for the change is likely a senator who makes no bones about it: "I dress like a slob?”
There is nothing wrong with slobs. I have known many. They have been introverts and extroverts, tall and short, funny and droll. There is no pigeon-holing the slob. Intermingled within them are the New World Order of other various appearances that some find disturbing: tattoos, wild hair, or looks generally. Let's be clear, I am not likely to notice how you look. More importantly, I really don't care.
I see people's personal appearance as a personal choice. In my own defense, I am never at all certain what colors go together to begin with. I am no fashion maven, make-up expert, or social influencer. If you believe that thing you are wearing is fashionable, striking, or more, then more power to you, I say. I see no reason you should not be able to. If sharp teeth are your choice or culture, more power to you. Horns? sure, go for it. You be you. But, know that some might disapprove, stare, or even gawk. "Don't say I didn't, say I didn't warn ya," Blank Space, Taylor Swift 2014).
The author of the NY Times article suggests that how people dress, and their appearance, "telegraphs intricate messages to those around us, as well as to ourselves." There is suggestion there that our perceptions of dress are "entirely context-dependent." She suggests that there is no surprise or question in our seeing "A tuxedo’d guest at a wedding," but "A tuxedo’d guest at a picnic is a spectacle." That context-dependence is likely true in a variety of things.
A man with horns, facial tattoos, and pink hair is likely perfectly expected in some settings, and perhaps a distraction in others. A woman wearing neck rings is perhaps mundane in some settings, and not in others. Or, stated differently, such a person is perhaps perfectly expected by some observers and is a distraction to others. A famous keeper of keys noted this similarly, the way uniqueness may stimulate attention:
"Well, of course he was interested in Fluffy. How often do you come across a three-headed dog, even if you're in the trade?"
(Hagrid, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, Warner Brothers, 2001). With all due deference to the man with horn implants, "how often do you come across" that? That is not any manner of deprecation. You be you, that is what I always say. But, if you are the only one in town with purple skin and yellow teeth, be prepared for some people to do a double take. Shave your head and no one will likely even notice. Shave half your head and perhaps they will look twice. There is nothing wrong with your look, but the difference is just like being the only one at the picnic in a tuxedo. The mind picks up on "different."
The Times author notes that there are perceived challenges to a "code-free" world. There is discussion there of a disparate impact on those who perceive themselves to be women. The author describes a fair number of choices that she contends import disparate challenges applicable only to women. Not ever having been a woman, I defer to her and others' perspectives on this point. That said, perhaps her view is a bit constrained? Maybe those many challenges are faced as well by those who think they are men?
But, one conclusion resonates perhaps more broadly: "Decisions all carry a perpetual risk of tipping us somehow into 'inappropriateness.'” That is rather a stark conclusion. Perhaps it is more fair to say that any decisions tip us to being noticed. Whether we are overdressed (tuxedo) or under (shorts and flip-flops), we may set ourselves apart. That may lead us to being noticed and criticized. See, as much as I respect your right to look as you wish, I also respect the rights of the observer to be surprised, off-put, or worse.
While that is intriguing, is it really new? Is it really novel? I suspect I own a couple of ties that may fit in this "inappropriateness" category. I have been told that there is a reason that tie or that shirt was on a table at the retailer with a sign that said "Free, take as many as you wish."
The Times author says that the way people look can impact them. She questions whether clothing are intricately interwoven into the way they are perceived. It seems to be the perception of the observer rather than the intent of the wearer that is of concern. Would certain appearances "deprive (one) of gravitas?" Would appearance rob one of "dignity and authority?" Would appearance "exacerbate . . . inequity?" This is likely to be a resounding yes. If you dress up in a clown suit with a big red nose, it is probable some people will expect you to be a clown. You can put that down to prejudice, bias, or worse. But, you cannot claim that it surprises you.
The conversation continues with complaints or criticism of the Senate's discrimination in this action. It is noted that the new relaxed dress code (or absence of one) applies only to the Senators. The staff and support there are apparently required to remain true to a code of formality and structure. There is no mention as to whether the staff might sport tattoos, horns, or brightly-colored hair. Let us not even begin down the path of piercings. In our world of egalitarianism, why do rules apply selectively to some?
The author stresses strength of "commonality" and similarity. There is a perceived strength in some degree of uniformity or similarity. And when our U.S. Senators begin wearing shorts and hoodies to the ball, there is some angst or anxiety expressed. But, in the end, does appearance matter? Can someone be effective despite the predilections of appearance, the choices of attire and more?
I have no inkling whether there is power in appearance. When you look like me, you never put any stock in appearance getting you any advantage. I will, alas, never be viewed as attractive. My chances of being "internet famous" ("no one (cares) if you are Internet Famous," Life Sux, Leah Kate, 10K Projects) are entirely dependent on shock and awe (a unicorn in my forehead perhaps?). Or is it Instagram Famous? Beauty will never get me anywhere. But is there some such power for those who can simply color-coordinate a tie with the rest of an ensemble?
In the world of seeking redress, is there purpose or pitfall in appearance? When one appears before a judge, stated simply, does appearance matter? I would suggest that the answer is yes. That is not to say that everyone does not have the absolute right to look as they wish. They do. Without question. And, another fact is that everyone in the world has bias.
That is a rock not many will turn over. Like it or not, people are biased. We all know it, but few will admit it. Bias comes in all kinds of shapes and sizes. A good summary is here, but it is very cursory. For more depth, look at the 175+ types of cognitive bias here. Judges are trained to both recognize bias and combat its influence. But, humans are humans (or at least I believe so, that could be a bias). Some say, as regards cognitive bias:
"Research suggests that there are more than 175 different types of cognitive bias. It refers to deviation from standards of judgment whereby you may create inferences, assessments, or perceptions that are unreasonable."
Get that "you may create." The bias is yours. You decide. And if you are in the "I can look as I want" camp, then bless you. You do you! But know that the bias and perception belongs to the observer. Your affinity for any appearance may empower you personally, and simultaneously compromise your effectiveness, credibility, and gravitas in the eyes of others. You can lament that, but, well see Taylor Swift above.
So, dress as you will. The Senate has decided that for at least some there any clothing choice is appropriate. That means senators can wear whatever they wish. But, they cannot decide how people will perceive them for it. Make no mistake, the formality of a dress code does not change that, people might have previously thought them all stodgy and pompous for all wearing suits and ties. But, the code merely institutionalized a "look" so that there is some anonymity in the crowd (if everyone is made to wear a tuxedo to the picnic, tuxedos will perhaps not be perceived as odd to any, or as to so many, observer(s)).
All that said, showing up to a hearing in your basketball shorts and hoodie is not recommended. Sorry, bias. Parties, lawyers, witnesses, and more should strive to appear neat, clean, and presentable. If you have horns, well I'm not sure how to advise you. But, whether it offends one's individuality or not, appearance matters. I have studied trial proceedings and judges for decades. I can tell you that your appearance both matters to the finder of fact and can be a distraction.
Like it or not, all a judge may remember about you is that you have purple hair, horns, a spider-web tattoo on your forehead, or a very noticeable piercing in your nose, forehead, or face. Did you think it was unnoticeable? Of course not. You like it and desire it. But you cannot control how it is perceived.
In a trial, you need not wear designer clothes. You need not have your hair or nails professionally done. Trial is not ever a fashion show or pageant. But, clean and neat may be important or critical. If everyone is wearing a tuxedo, then you may be more comfortable and effective in one too. If you cannot abide tuxedos, then wear your basketball shorts. However, remain aware that how others perceive your choices may impact their acceptance of you and your arguments, statements, and thoughts. Like it or not, a judge or jury may discount your testimony because of your appearance.
In the Spielberg classic, 1941, the protagonist enters as a waiter in a breakfast cafe. The movie's premise is "war nerves" following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Americans have died and people are scared. The protagonist wears a gaudy shirt with "Pearl Harbor" printed among many American Flags. There is abuse and a fight. After the fight, the following exchange occurs between the soldiers and the protagonist (Wally):
Cpl. Chuck 'Stretch' Sitarski : "You ain't gonna tip him, are you Sarge?"Wally Stephens : "It's OK! I don't need your tip!"Sergeant Frank Tree : "I think you do, get rid of that shirt."
Should appearance matter? Absolutely not. The fellow wearing the dog collar with a bull ring through his nose should be treated the same as the lady in the clown suit. The kid in the Pearl Harbor shirt should not be assaulted in the restaurant. The man wearing an environmentally-conscious recycled material sweater should be treated the same as the man in the mink coat. Everyone should be perceived and treated equally. No bias should ever intrude. Grow up. "Should" does not equal "would."
Is it a realistic expectation that no bias will exist? It is not. People without (fill in the blank here, horns, piercings, tattoos, purple hair) are likely to notice those with that affectation. They may look down on and therefore doubt those who have it. I had a judge tell me a face tattoo story once, and a finding of the witness lacking credibility. I questioned why and the judge said "anyone with a face tattoo like that lacks judgment and therefore credibility." Anyone judge? Davero?!?
Maybe, just for today, go for the neat and tidy. Perhaps, for the sake of probabilities, strive to minimize the potentials for distraction. If there is a reason for distraction, by all means, own it. If you will be the only physician to testify, dressing like a physician at trial may invoke precisely the bias (doctors are smart) that you seek. If the challenges of your job are relevant, put them on display (a laborer appearing wearing a lifting brace is a visual reinforcement). But be wary of what you intend to communicate and the potential for unexpected perceptions.
Expression is free (bless that Constitution and those who wrote it). You may look as you like. Be a slob and be proud. But, know that you control only the outgoing message. The rest of the world is just as free to fault you for that expression. Sure, that is not fair. Sure, bias is often bad. Sure, that is the way it is though. Be a slob. You be you.
