Gender, Fashion & The Political Institution: An Interview With Miranda Saul
For decades, fashion in institutions that hold significant amounts of power have been undeniably strict, especially for women and people of colour. It’s clear, through the statistics of those who are hired as politicians, that traditional values have influenced the world of politics. In may 2019, research briefings show that 52, or just over 8% of members in the house of commons, have non-white ethnic backgrounds. With contemporary fashion changing the ideologies of past traditional values, and an increase in diversity in contemporary politics, will young people carry on wearing smart-wear to work? In this article, I got to speak to a close friend called Miranda Saul. Leading advocate for women and minority rights and studying international relations at Goldsmiths University, as well as having the opportunity to speak at the UN multiple times as a young woman of colour, she encourages women to speak up against the heteronormative. See below our discussion.
Miranda Saul, centre, at her first UN meeting
What are your main goals in life? If you were to wear something ‘contemporary’, would people judge your goals as unreachable/more difficult?
My life and career goals are to work in an international organisation – ideally the UN – in order to further women’s and minority rights. Because my aims are based around equality, feminism etc., I would agree that there is a certain stigma around the way I present myself, as I don’t necessarily think I look “traditional”. I have piercings and tattoos and for a while I had dyed silver hair which doesn’t necessarily describe your average diplomat or rapporteur. I personally worry, too, that my social media presence hinders my job possibilities. On Instagram I post pictures of myself in short skirts, crop tops and gym wear (which shows off my midriff). These more contemporary clothes are heavily stigmatised when it comes to the world of work. It’s perceived that the shorter your skirt, the less you respect yourself and therefore how could I defend women? I don’t even respect myself!
This all being said, when I was at the UN last October, I had the pleasure of meeting the Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance – E. Tendayi Achiume. Special Rapporteurs are some of the most senior and influential members of the UN – you may remember when the SR on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights surveyed the UK last year. Ms Achiume is a young black woman with piercings, naturally styled hair who wore a modern, open-collar suit. She was definitely contemporarily dressed and almost certainly the most senior person in the room.
Also, the Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has an undepletable stock of Hawaiian shirts that he wears to all the functions he can get away with. Maybe not exactly contemporary, but definitely challenging the smart-wear culture.
So I would say that, yes maybe I would be judged, especially by people who did not know the world I was wishing to enter. But in the end, I think that experience, drive and vision trumps presentation – at least, I hope it does.
For the longest duration in human history, the suit and tie complex has seen itself at the top of professional-fashion. Why do you think this?
Two simple words: patriarchal society. We have to trace the concept of “professionalism” back to its roots. Professionalism comes from being highly educated and have a certain style/level of decorum. These two things both come from having a certain class privilege and being educated by certain institutions. These institutions, of course, did not accept women or BME people. This means that the style of dress associated with men of a certain background and education became the dress most associated with being “professional”. I think, now, it remains for tradition (the worst justification for anything but a justification that remains nonetheless), and as a sort of uniform. The creation of a group mentality does aid business in the way that a uniform works for an army or sports team – we are all one family because we look the same – but it is not necessarily the best for levelling the playing field.
Do you think smart-wear = intelligence? If not, why do you think people think this?
I wouldn’t agree. I think this probably originated from a classist perspective. As a rule, if you make a snap judgement about someone by the way they’re dressed, it’s almost certain that underlying societal prejudices have shaped the opinion you’ve formed. Someone who is dressed in a suit is not necessarily more intelligent than someone in a tracksuit, but it’s likely they’ve had more privilege. Privilege can provide more experience but not more intelligence.
On a day-to-day basis, women are judged and discriminated against for their fashion choices, (e.g. wearing clothes that show skin, shoulders, extended amounts of arm, short skirts e.t.c.) How do you think we can approach and fix this issue?
De-sexualising the female body!! The basic fact is that, no matter what a woman wears, she will never get it right. But if we desexualise the female body and allow woman to show her body off in the same way a man does, we lose the stigma around “modesty” etc. How do we desexualise the female body? Education, legislation and destigmatisation.
What do you think is next for fashion in government/people in power?
Well, if we look at our dear Prime Ministers’ right-hand-man, the next for fashion is t-shirts and gilet jackets. But the fact is, following on from what we said about smart-wear, I doubt it will stray from suits and ties. I’m not sure that’s a bad thing either. In my opinion, the people in power are accountable to us and to dress down is to show they respect us less than any other boss. You wouldn’t turn up to meet the CEO of the company you work for in a t-shirt and gilet would you? Then why should they? I think that people in power need to be constantly reminded that they are not in charge of us, we are in charge of them; smart-wear is a reminder of that.
Why do you think fashion is so restrictive?
I can only really speak for women’s fashion here.
Clothes and the concept of “modesty”, derived from religious practices, are intrinsically linked. It is also linked to a perceived gender binary and an accepted culture of cisheteronormativity. This is why we have men’s and women’s sections in shops; there’s no overlap between “the two genders” of course! It’s why women’s clothes rarely have pockets - and if they do you can’t get anything in them; so that women are a) prevented from being autonomous and b) made to buy handbags to become autonomous. I could go on. Fashion is restrictive because it – at a high street level – continues to serve doctrines that do not reflect reality.
Grace Arber, left, and Miranda Saul, right, at a pro-EU march in London
Why is fashion gendered? Does this help you?
Similar to what I just said, fashion is gendered because of the perpetuation of easy narratives. It’s so much easier to sort people in to two categories than allow them to exist on a spectrum. In a capitalist society, clothing that would be able to serve the gender spectrum is simply not manageable. It’s much more profitable to have either women’s or men’s clothes and ask people to pick between the two. It helps me because I identify as a cis woman. That means I can walk in to any shop and find clothes that have been created to comfortably sit on my body and reflect my personality. This is not true for a large number of people. This being said, it does also hinder me and my gender. There are proven links between designers, CEOs of clothing brands and those who work in the porn industry and/or have backgrounds like Epstein’s. Additionally, if we look at the way runway models have been cast, they have been getting thinner, flatter chested and with few curves – arguably more childlike. This, it has been argued, comes from the desire of paedophiles and their sway in the fashion community. Conversations I’ve had in and around the UN have led me to see the link between men who control women’s fashion and trends I deem to be problematic. I am all for allowing a woman to do what she wants with her body, but I am always cautious about trends that undeniably sexualise the female form. I will always want to know why it has been designed in such a way, and who benefits from me purchasing and wearing it.
Due to people in power wearing smart-wear, suits have become the representation of intelligence. Are there any associations in fashion that you could think of that affects you directly?
When it comes to women’s fashion, there are a million. Short skirts mean you’re a floozy who wants it and/or you don’t respect yourself. Same for tight clothes. If you wear long skirts and baggy clothes, you’re a prude who doesn’t have any fun; you’re uptight and boring. Blue jeans, Uggs and a woolly jumper mean you’re ditsy and a bit pathetic, but black jeans, Docs andd a band t-shirt mean you’re “emo”, oversensitive and an outcast. I wear a lot of black and that means I have been told a MILLION times that I come off as unapproachable, scary and even a bit of a bitch. Who knew one colour could elicit such reactions?
What advice would you give women wanting to go into politics?
Specifically, find an NGO or charity and volunteer for them. Don’t necessarily fundraise but try and get in to the nitty gritty of it. Understand the reasons behind decisions. Always stay informed about everything that’s going on. Read at least one paper a day and listen to the radio. Do NOT get your news from social media!!
Generally, learn how to say, “excuse me, I wasn’t finished talking”, and “yes, that is what I just said” because young women’s voices, especially, are often the least heard and the least valued. Be confident and proactive. Be ready to be shot down but never let it get to you. Never, ever, ever stop striving. If you want something to change politically, but you aren’t going to be the one to make the change, who is going to do it for you?